>
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, Copyright, 1997
(URLs and format updated August, 2003)
Much
more on Doug Wilson's continued backsliding can be found at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/DWilson.htm
Most
of the resources referenced in this book
may be purchased through:
Still Waters Revival Books
(Reformation resources at great
discounts!)
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5
E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
(780) 450-3730
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/
(MANY FREE BOOKS on the home page!)
Notes to non-email readers:
The following debate took place over email and email formatting protocols
have been retained.
In email > or >> means something written by a previous writer.
Underscoring before and after an item indicates italics and is usually used
to indicate the use of a book or magazine title. Example: _A Brief Defence of Dissociation
in the Present Circumstances_, outside of email, would read A Brief Defence of Dissociation in the
Present Circumstances.
Asterisks are used to indicate emphasis. Example: "Distinguishing
between the *essential* and *constitutional* character of the visible church
(as the Reformers' did) would also be useful...", outside of email, would
read "Distinguishing between the essential
and constitutional character of the
visible church (as the Reformers' did) would also be useful..."
Please note: A "Table of
Contents" follows the "Introduction."
INTRODUCTION TO _SAUL IN THE CAVE OF ADULLAM_
by Reg Barrow
The following book chronicles a controversy initiated by
_Credenda/Agenda_ magazine when they published an attack on me in
their "Cave of Adullam" section. In my opinion this attack was
clearly in
violation of the ninth commandment.
This episode with Doug Wilson (and _Credenda/Agenda_) evokes imagery
of walking down a long narrow path (the full covenanted testimony for the
truth [Rev. 12:6]), surrounded by darkness (the present apostasy from
covenanted attainments [2 Thes. 2:3] -- especially among professing
Christians and the visible church in its corporate character [Rev. 17:5]),
my
way illumined by only a flashlight (the Word of God and the testimony of
faithful martyrs [Rev. 6:9] and other witnesses -- agreeable to the Word of
God [Rev. 6:9]). I and other witnesses press steadfastly and determinedly
onward, waiting for the sun to arise (when the Holy Spirit is poured out in
world transforming power [cf. Ezek. 47:1-12, especially verses 5-12]) and
illuminate not only the narrow path (Matt. 7:14), but the whole earth
(during the coming millennium glory, when the covenants will again be
nationally renewed and the biblical attainments of former generations
vindicated on a massive scale [Isa. 2:2-5, Matt. 13:31-33]). Across this
narrow path, blocking the way to further individual and corporate
sanctification, is a piece of splinter-filled, rotten wood
(_Credenda/Agenda's_ original attack against me for bearing witness, on
Knox Ring, against John Frame's apostasy and idolatry). Not wanting others
to stumble over this obstacle, I bend down to remove it (my use of Matt.
18:15-17 to restore the offenders at _Credenda/Agenda_) and use my
flashlight to illuminate the portion of path it obscured. To my surprise, in
so doing I am confronted with a den of scorpions (the heresies [some
Romish, some Anabaptist, some malignant, some independent, etc.] and
further slanderous accusations of Doug Wilson -- against classical
Protestantism and the biblical attainments of the second Reformation)! My
attempt to exterminate and remove these scorpion-like opinions from the
path of the covenanted Reformation make up much of what follows in this
book.
Before I continue, I must make an important caveat. This is in no way to
say that I judge Doug Wilson (or the others involved at
_Credenda/Agenda_) to be outside the invisible church -- that is for God to
decide. Throughout this book (and above) I am addressing those
statements and actions (1 Cor. 3:12-15, John 7:24, 1 Cor. 2:15) which either
have been published already or which Doug Wilson has agreed to make
public. Furthermore, as will be seen throughout my responses, the question
of what Calvin calls the "true and lawful constitution of the
church" or the
"lawful form of the (visible--RB) church" (_Institutes_ 4.2.12) is
often in
view. Please be sure to make the distinction between the visible church as
it is *duly constituted* and the "catholic or universal" visible
church (or the
visible church as to its *essential* character) -- which "consists of
all those
throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their
children" (_Westminster Confession of Faith_ 25:2). This is an
essential
biblical distinction which must be made when ecclesiastical questions are
in view (cf. Larry Birger's "The Visible Church: Essence Versus Lawful
Form" free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/vischu.htm
or write
us for this free newsletter). Getting this right would help clear up much of
the fuzzy thinking that permeates the church today. Distinguishing
between the *essential* and *constitutional* character of the visible church
(as the Reformers' did) would also be useful in eliminating a great deal of
the misdirected, misapplied and unnecessary name-calling that has been
bandied about of late (of which Wilson provides many examples
throughout his letters to me). On this point the Session of the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton gives us one of the most mature and
faithful contemporary short summaries of the Reformation position,
"Though it is not necessary that a truly constituted church be
absolutely
pure as to the doctrine taught or embraced, as to the ordinances
administered, or the public worship performed, it is, however, necessary
that its constitution be founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God
and that its constitution reflect the light attained to by the purest of
Reformed Churches (for all reformation must be biblical reformation if it is
reformation at all, otherwise it is not a reformation but a deformation, cf.
Phil. 3:16). Wherefore, to adopt a constitution that corrupts the light of
Scripture or the light of reformation is to adopt a false constitution. A
false
constitution renders a church and its courts unconstitutional... for a
church
to constitutionally adhere to Arminianism, Dispensationalism, or
Charismatic experientialism (false doctrine), singing uninspired hymns or
using instrumental music in public praise (false worship), Episcopacy or
Independency (false government), or unrestricted communion (false
discipline) is to qualify as a constitutionally false church. That is not to
say
that there are no believers in churches that are not truly constituted
(there
may be many in some cases). Nor is it to imply that ministers or elders
within those churches do not courageously stand for many truths taught in
Scripture. It is simply to say that authority to rule in the church must
come from Christ, and if a church does not have a constitution of which He
approves (as King of His church), then there is no lawful authority to rule
or to administer the ordinances on His behalf. Authority to administer the
divine ordinances on behalf of Christ flows directly from the King and His
constitution. Authority used within His church on any other grounds is an
usurped authority. It is tyranny" (_A Brief Defence of Dissociation in
the
Present Circumstances_, pp. 1-2. Free on the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BriefDef.htm
).
Those failing to make this fundamental distinction (which is seen
throughout Reformation writings dealing with ecclesiastical matters) are
liable to become trapped by the same error which now ensnares Wilson,
when he falsely labels me (and the other Covenanters in Edmonton) with
the horrible heresy of the Anabaptistic schismatics. This error is refuted
throughout the following debate and in appendix A by Greg Price in his
"Testimony Against the Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism."
Now, to enlarge upon the preceding allegory. After being informed of
_Credenda/Agenda's_ public assault upon my name and my company, I
initially spoke to the elders of the church I attend, seeking counsel as to
how best to proceed. Hoping, as much as possible, to keep this controversy
out of the public eye (for the sake of the brethren at _Credenda/Agenda_
and the broader testimony to the truth [2 Sam. 1:20]), and thinking that a
presentation of the facts of the case would quickly lead
_Credenda/Agenda_ to make their own public retraction, it was decided
that Greg Price (who is the teaching elder at the Puritan Reformed Church
of Edmonton, which I attend) would contact Doug Wilson. Accordingly, Mr.
Price then made four private attempts to resolve the situation brought
about by _Credenda/Agenda's_ publicly distributed false accusations. As
evidenced by the book you now hold, even after these four private
attempts at reconciliation, Doug Wilson was unwilling to repent -- and
actually hurled additional scornful and derisive barbs in our direction. At
this point I began the Matthew 18:15-17 process with Mr. Wilson, in the
hope of reclaiming this brother.
In short, this book follows this controversy as it unfolded after I began
the
Matthew 18:15-17 process with Mr. Wilson, though it also includes those
previous items which gave rise to this dispute. The table of contents below
outlines each of the items covered. The most important letters -- i.e. my
second and fifth replies to Wilson and appendix A, Greg Price's
"Testimony
Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism" -- are marked with
asterisks. These three sections deal with a number of larger public issues
regarding the individual, church, and state, and help remove this
discussion from the realm of the specific slanders I addressed (appendix B,
my article "Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug Wilson's Civil
Antinomianism" might also be added to this category). I mark them as
most important not because I seek to minimize the public slander that took
place, but because addressing Wilson's charges exposed much more serious
differences (Wilson's scorpion-like comments and beliefs) between
_Credenda/Agenda_ and the Covenanted testimony which Still Waters
Revival Books seeks to maintain. Some of the other letters (by Wilson and
myself) probably could have been left out of this collection, because they
add nothing to the more important public issues which we ended up
debating; but I have included them for those who don't mind following all
the rabbit trails that Wilson wanted to explore, hoping to justify himself
as
to our original controversy. These items contain much posturing and a
repetition of previously discussed topics and can be skipped over without
missing much in the way of general edification.
My earnest desire is that the reader will engage himself in the **issues**
presented, rather than the personalities and controversy that started this
dispute. Appropriate (indeed, unavoidable) conclusions about Wilson and
many other modern "Reformed" teachers and guides may then be drawn
(Acts 17:11; Rom. 16:17; Prov. 19:27; I John 4:1). Greg Price's
"Testimony
Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism" (appendix A), is a case in
point. Here Price compares the differences between the Anabaptists'
heresies and the doctrines held by the early Reformers and covenanted
Presbyterians (i.e. the paleopresbyterians) of the second Reformation.
Without even mentioning Wilson, but by simply dealing with the issues
and historical record, Price readily demonstrates the lack of sound
scholarship exhibited by Wilson in his claims that we are Anabaptistic.
Furthermore, in an ironic (yet providential) twist, the reader familiar with
the public testimony of Doug Wilson and _Credenda/Agenda_ will observe
that they actually adopt some Anabaptistic distinctives themselves.
For example, the Anabaptists were among the first "Reformation"
groups
to:
1. Introduce uninspired man-made hymns into worship;
2. Oppose the establishment of the one true Reformed religion (thereby
promoting theological and religious egalitarianism/pluralism and that cut-
throat of all true religion: anti-Scriptural tolerationism);
3. Deny the *specifics* of covenant obligations (though the Anabaptists go
much further in this than those at _Credenda/Agenda_, denying
covenanting outright);
4. Adopt forms of civil antinomianism (as Doug Wilson does regarding the
pornography question and negative civil sanctions in "Cyberporn: A Case
Study," _Credenda/Agenda_, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 11. See my appendix B,
"Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug Wilson's Civil
Antinomianism," for
a more detailed look at this error and its relationship to Anabaptist
views).
Price's appendix on the Anabaptists is a fascinating study which further
reveals how far the modern "Reformed" community has fallen into
some of
the heresies held by those once considered to be among the greatest
enemies of truth -- and the Reformation in general (i.e. the Anabaptists).
Remember that because of
"the covert nature of the Anabaptists' methodology... Knox regard(ed)
the
Anabaptists as more dangerous than Papists... The 'horrible and absurd'
opinions of the Anabaptists are 'rotten heresies' and 'damnable errors.' The
adherents to such teachings are 'blasphemers' and vile slaves of proud
Lucifer.' In the _First Books of Discipline_, the Anabaptists are classed
among the 'enemies to the Christian religion.' The _Confession of the
English Congregation at Geneva_ speaks of the Anabaptists as 'limbs of
Antichrist'" (Kevin Reed's Introduction to John Knox, _A Warning
Against
the Anabaptists_, reprinted 1984, pp. 13,16).
It may be obvious that a number of our modern day "Reformers" lay
comfortably in the bed of the Romish whore (as to specific doctrinal
aberrations and idolatrous worship practices), but it should never be
forgotten (as evidenced by Price's appendix A and my appendix B
"Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug Wilson's Civil
Antinomianism")
that many have also fallen into the deep pit of Anabaptist apostasy.
In my responses to Wilson (and _Credenda Agenda_), I have chosen, to a
great extent, to let our Protestant forefathers speak for themselves. They
are more than able to convincingly make the case for classical
Protestantism and the attainments of the second Reformation, thereby
displaying for us the "old paths" (Jer. 6:16) and "narrow
way" (Matt. 7:14).
Of course, the path of the visible church can be profitably traced back to
the ancients (with the use of the Old Testament); but our present battle
focuses primarily on the church after she had "come of age,"
shedding the
ceremonies of her youth, stepping out of the shadows of the old
administration (of the covenant of grace), and into the glorious light and
freedom brought by the work of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:1-18).
Notwithstanding our Reformation focus, I do, however, sometimes note the
post-apostolic and pre-Reformation fathers and counsels, when their
testimony is in accord with Scripture.
My point here is that the use of many (and sometimes lengthy) quotations
is by design, for it is these very Reformation quotations which clearly
demonstrate the point at issue. As Samuel Davies once wrote, "The
venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me
from the nonsense of surviving mortals." These citations not only
vindicate,
exonerate, exculpate, absolve, and acquit those walking in the "old
paths"
(from the charges of those seeking to hinder them by burying Reformation
attainments), but clearly illustrate who is really following in the
"footsteps
of the flock" (Song 1:8) -- or the paths of the best (or classical)
Reformers
in their faithfulness to the Word of God (i.e. the paleopresbyterians) --
and
who is perpetrating and perpetuating the defection (i.e. the
neopresbyterians). The force of the arguments cited from the old
Reformers alone, even without my additional comments, is enough to crush
all the scorpions on the path -- and Greg Price's "Testimony Against
the
Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism," in appendix A (replete with the
mature and faithful witness of the Reformers) completes the mopping up
operation (sweeping aside all the splinters left-over from the previously
removed rotten wood, as well as the remains of numerous dead scorpions).
After reading through to the end of our complete response, future
travellers engaging the narrow path should have a much easier time of
negotiating the treacherous portions of terrain that are sometimes
encountered in the dark night of apostasy, backsliding and declension.
Furthermore, unless additional stumbling blocks are cast in the way (by
Wilson, _Credenda Agenda_ or others), future specific responses should be
unnecessary.
Also, please note that at the *end of my fifth response* to Doug Wilson, in
the "P.P.S." section, I have answered five questions which Wilson
has
previously asked. Four of these questions were initially directed to Greg
Price, were later repeated in *Wilson's second letter to me*, and again turn
up in Wilson's review of Frame's book noted below. All these questions
address problems Mr. Wilson seems to be having with the regulative
principle of worship as articulated by the bulk of Reformation divines.
That he continues to repeat them indicates to me that he considers these
questions serious challenges to historic Reformed worship principles. Here,
in conjunction with Wilson's review of Frame's _Worship in Spirit and
Truth_ (cf. _Credenda Agenda_, volume 8, number 5, pp. 34-35; in which
Wilson denigrates the classical Protestant position on worship by terming
it the position of the "strict regulativists"), we again see that
our brother
has strayed from the narrow path. We also observe, once again, how
conclusively his objections and concerns have already been met by the
skilled teachers of old. Moreover, it is at this important juncture in the
Reformation road that Wilson seems surprisingly unaware that he would
have to include many of the Reformers, their Confessions, their faithful
acts of government, etc., under his arbitrarily chosen category of
"strict
regulativism." For example: the Dutch Reformers, their older national
synods (cf. "The Organ in the Worship Service and the Singing of
Hymns,"
in the forthcoming book _The Wonders of the Most High_ by Abraham Van
de Velde, pp. 125-126 -- Lord willing we will be providing this book free
of charge on our web page in the near future), "Calvin, Knox,
Rutherfurd,
Gillespie, Henderson, Baillie, the Westminster Assembly, the entire church
of Scotland at the time of that Assembly, and John Owen, to name only a
few" (as Larry Birger points out in his shorter letter to the editor
contained
in section ten below) would all neatly fit under Wilson's Reformation-
denying "strict regulativist" misrepresentation. Is this the
classical
Protestantism which Wilson so loves to promote in the pages of
_Credenda/Agenda_? Or should this denial of biblical attainments and
faithfulness be a warning sign to those who desire to worship God as He
commands? Birger again comments, "readers should note that Doug Wilson
is not a 'classical Protestant' in his doctrine of worship. Indeed, he has
set
himself squarely against (the) classical (Protestant view of worship--RB)."
To be a "strict regulativist" in the sense in which Wilson applies
this term
in his review is in reality to be just a "regulativist" -- or one
who seeks to
worship God according to His commands. By adding "strict" to
"regulativist"
Wilson seeks to subtly carve out a niche for those who want to pay lip
service to the regulative principle, while denying its *particular*
requirements. This attempt to obscure the original meaning of the
regulative principle (of which the biblical interpretation has been clearly
hammered out *in great detail* in the writings of the Reformers) may
mislead the ignorant and scandalous, but it will in no way deceive those
familiar with the great Reformation battles already fought over these same
worship controversies -- controversies, I might add, in which much
martyrs' blood was shed for the same principles and practices I am
defending here). Those with eyes to see will recognize at once that, in
actuality, Wilson's review of Frame was nothing more than a subtle
attempt to deny our blood bought Reformation heritage, as it has been
handed down to us in the regulative principle of worship. Wilson's attempt
at hijacking the high ground by employing literary and historical
revisionism ultimately exposes him as an anti-regulativist. Wilson is closer
to Rome than the Reformation at this point and his practice proves it!
When it comes to the worship question he continues to ignore, in classic
neopresbyterian style, the biblical attainments of our paleopresbyterian
progenitors (and thus falls into bed with the Romish whore at points). My
proof for these claims (which may startle those unfamiliar with
Reformation history) is found in *my fifth response to Wilson* (section 7 in
the table of contents below). In this section I cover a portion of the
general
history and teaching of the Reformation relating to the regulative principle
-- with particular focus on the Protestants' opinion relative to the
"badge
of Popery" (i.e. organ use in public worship). This section of my fifth
response (tying Reformed ideas about close communion to the worship
question) also includes a demonstration of why the old Reformers (and
Calvin specifically) would have excommunicated John Frame for writing
(and publicly distributing) his book _Worship in Spirit and Truth_. Thus,
this section provides proof which vindicates my comments on the Knox
Ring email discussion group which the brothers at _Credenda/Agenda_
originally attacked. It also shows why Wilson would have come under the
same negative ecclesiastical sanctions (given his present positions and
practice) as Frame, had he lived in the days of the first or second
Reformations.
By the way, Wilson (in the book review noted above) commends Frame's
_Worship in Spirit and Truth_ as "careful and irenic" and
"useful... for the
suggested critique of strict regulativists." Now, I have asked myself,
why
would Wilson, if he is a classical Protestant (as he is wont to insist),
recommend Frame's idolatry promoting, innovation filled, anti-Protestant
book on worship, as a critique of the very classical Protestants he says he
upholds? In my opinion the answer is simple: Wilson is still an antinomian
when it comes to worship. The mystical conclusion (Wilson's protest that
"this is no appeal to mysticism" notwithstanding) found in the
second last
paragraph of his review of Frame's book gives conclusive evidence that
this is the case. Here Wilson seems to have an empty bottle which he calls
the regulative principle, but he has yet to fill it with anything beyond a
statement noting that Jesus, as a person, is our regulative principle. How
could we agree or disagree with these words? Such statements leave us
where Wilson's review begins, with an "empty bottle" labelled
subjective,
non-specific, musings on worship. Such writing is so ambiguous that it tells
us *nothing specific* about how we are to glorify God in our public
worship. Romanists, Arminians, Charismatics and a host of others, who all
violate the regulative principle (i.e. the second commandment) in their
public worship, could all agree with Wilson's empty platitudes (this is
worse than neopresbyterianism, it is the empty-headed nonsense of
modern "evangelicalism"). The Reformers wrote huge treatises on
the
worship question, and the bulk of them (and their confessions) adopted
what Wilson calls the "strict regulativist" position. If Wilson
wants to retain
any credibility at all on this topic he had best *specifically* declare his
position. If he denies the classical Protestant position on the regulative
principle (as Steve Schlissel does, whom Wilson approbates in his review of
Frame), then let him tell us *specifically* what he is going to put in its
place. And, let him show that he has researched the Reformers' position by
interacting with their **best** arguments for the regulative principle --
something woefully lacking in Steve Schlissel's modern assaults upon
Reformed worship and Presbyterian government.
We who uphold the Reformation doctrine of the regulative principle have
*specifically* set forth our *positive position* concerning public worship
in
**numerous** cassette lectures and sermons, new books, republished
books, newsletters, videos, tracts, web pages, etc. -- it is our critics
(Wilson,
Schlissel, etc.) turn to give us something *specific* as to their **positive
position** on the second commandment and the public worship of God. Let
them tell us *specifically*, to the best of their ability (after having
studied
the relevant data), what the second commandment allows and what it
forbids. We have done that for them (and they have taken their shots at
our work); let them now do it for us and we will be happy to critique their
work (and let the readers judge who has done their homework on this
critical issue). And if this work ever gets done by the modern detractors of
Reformation worship, the readers should pay careful attention to all the
footnotes cited (to compare them with the footnotes in our critiques), so as
to determine who it is that is favorably citing the Westminster Divines, the
Reformation Dutch Synods, Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, Gillespie, Owen, and
even most of the early Independents. It should then be clear who the real
classical Protestants are, and who has set up tent in some other camp. I
also ask the reader to consider the following questions: Were the
Calvinistic Reformers and their Confessions all wrong in their
interpretation of Scripture concerning worship? Were the Lutherans,
Prelates and Romanists right? In providing the *specifics* of their position
on worship will our modern reformers prove to the onlooking Christian
community that they follow in the footsteps of the original Reformers? Or,
will they show that they follow in the footsteps of those who opposed the
Reformation? Will they adopt the classical Protestant position on worship
or will they reject it -- and be honest enough to say so publicly?
The regulative principle of worship is a two way street. Agree with it (and
continue to apply it faithfully to each specific act of worship, as your
understanding increases) and you are on the road to Westminster and the
Covenanted Reformation; disagree with it and (at the most basic level) you
are on the road to Rome. There is no neutrality; you either worship God
according to His appointment (Exod. 20:4-6), or you will find some human
substitute. "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
the
commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). Regarding this observation as to the
degree of faithfulness one maintains to the regulative principle, R.L.
Dabney makes the same point in his book review of Girardeau's
_Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church_. First, Dabney warns
that those who reject the classical Protestant position on the regulative
principle also reject "that vital truth which no Presbyterian can
discard
without a square desertion of our principles." A second shot is fired
when
he compounds his warning in this cautionary beacon, proclaiming that
those who do not adhere to what Wilson falsely calls "strict
regulativism"
have -- in Dabney's own words -- "**set out at once for Rome**."
Though this introduction and some of my replies to Wilson contain strong
language, I hope it is clear that this project is presented with much prayer
and with a sincere desire to glorify God, unify the church, and win many
brothers back to the precious truths fought and died for during both
Reformations. To do this, the neopresbyterian nonsense that is being
passed off today as "Classical Protestantism" -- especially by
those at
_Credenda/Agenda_ (and don't get me wrong, _Credenda/Agenda_ does
some very good work also) -- must be clearly exposed. In an attempt to
prepare those not accustomed to the heat of the battle (or familiar with the
many violently aggressive terms used by defenders of the faith, past and
present [Mark 8:33; Matt. 23:16; Matt. 3:7; and read Knox or Calvin]), I
caution you that some of what follows will periodically seem harsh. But
remember, the cultural effeminacy which presently pervades the churches
of the harlot (Rev. 17:5) is not our standard; the Word of God is!
Though the matter of _Credenda/Agenda's_ original slander is interspersed
throughout these pages, *please devote your attention to the larger issues
which arose*. I am convinced that a careful study of Scripture and history
will reveal that Doug Wilson and _Credenda/Agenda_ do not faithfully set
forth the whole counsel of God as it was articulated in the teaching of the
best Reformers -- and, as touched on already, in a number of cases they
actually oppose the biblical aspects of this teaching! The most prominent
example of Wilson's opposition to the Reformation (as you will see in our
letters) is his insistence that the position which we have adopted (being
the position of the Covenanted Presbyterians of the seventeenth century,
which included many of the Westminster Divines) is what he designates as
the Anabaptist position. Christ's church is under attack on many fronts
today, but some of the most dangerous assaults are coming from those who
lay claim to titles like "Reformed" and "Classical Protestant"
-- their cries
being all the more plausible, because more truth is mixed with their error.
Yet, these same "Classical Protestant" groups and individuals not
only
reject the hard teachings of the Reformation, but they also reject those who
are sent to once again bring them to light. I pray that this little book
will
help to make a clear distinction (in the minds of Christians) between the
truths of Scriptural Reformation and the lies of our modern day pseudo-
Reformers and fashionable sub-Calvinists (for the sake of the Truth
[Christ], Doug Wilson and the brothers at _Credenda/Agenda_ included). It
is also my prayer that it may assist those laboring under similar false
conceptions about Scripture and the Reformation to disentangle themselves
from false teachers and pretended authorities (in both the church and the
state).
Though this started out as my attempt to reconcile with those who had
publicly attacked me (without provocation), it turned out to be much more.
**Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, please keep in mind that the
most important information contained here is found in those sections (my
second and fifth letters and Greg Price's work on the Anabaptists) dealing
with the broader questions related to church, state, worship, separation,
attainments, etc.** Don't be distracted by the side issues, personalities
involved, or the frailty of this writer; ***please focus on the issues***.
Let
it also be known (because it is not always apparent in the heat of a battle
like this) that we (the Covenanters in Edmonton, Prince George, Red Deer,
the United States and elsewhere) mourn and grieve over the backslidden
state (especially at the constitutional level) of the visible church. We
love
the Lord's covenanted Zion and pray for the day when she shall be
"terrible as an army with banners" (Song 6:10), unified in the
truth (Zech.
14:9), with the nations (as nations) flowing into her (Isa. 2:2).
Though Gillespie applied the following words to the malignants (made up
primarily of professing Christians who opposed the covenants) of his day, I
think that these words continue to apply just as well to those antichristian
ideas (scorpions) which we are now seeking to oppose and vanquish in our
day. Gillespie, in his dying testimony against the forces of malignancy
(Sept. 8, 1648), wrote,
"I dare not be silent, nor conceal my thoughts of any sinful and
dangerous
course in the public proceedings... I cannot but discharge my conscience in
giving a testimony against all such compliance (with the malignants--RB)...
Yea, all that hear of it (the covenant breaking compliance--RB) might justly
stand amazed at us, and look on us as a people infatuated, **that can take
in our bosom the fiery serpents that have stung us so sore**" ("To
the Right
Reverend the Commission of the General Assembly" in Gillespie's _Works_
volume 2, p. 1)
This book is dedicated to assisting those with ears to hear, that we might
not be stung again and again by the same old poison of malignancy (only
now dressed in the modern and subtly attractive [to the flesh] attire of the
fashionable sub-Calvinists and the ever so "tolerant" [of sin]
pluralistic
neopresbyterians).
The constitutional daughters of the harlot always claim " I have peace
offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows" (Prov. 7:14). Be not
taken in by her (Prov. 7:18), for "With her much fair speech she caused
him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him" (Prov.
7:21). We
live in times comparable to Isaiah's, and we should prepare to heed his
vision "concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham,
Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah" (Isa. 1:1).
"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I
have
nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth
not know, my people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden
with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have
forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger,
they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye
will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart
faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in
it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been
closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is
desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it
in
your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the
daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden
of
cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a
very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have
been like unto Gomorrah" (Isa. 1:2-9).
One would have to be almost totally spiritually blind not to recognize that
we have nationally "provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger."
The
result is that our cities are burned with fire, our land is devoured by
strangers (covenant breakers, antichristian and pagan) and that "the
daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden
of
cucumbers, as a besieged city." But the Lord has left us a remnant for
"the
work of the restoring of the ruined temple of the Covenanted Reformation,
and thereby the effecting of a third Reformation" (James Kerr, as cited
in
_Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ by the
Covenanted Ministers of Scotland, p. 47) and, by His grace, as long as we
have breath to speak and hands to write, we will be found proclaiming
from rooftops: THE COVENANTS SHALL BE OUR REVIVING! For we have a
sure promise from the "LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God,
that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his
commandments" (Neh. 1:5),
"For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the
dry
ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine
offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the
water courses. One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call
himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand
unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel" (Isa.
44:3-5).
May our Lord bless the reading of these debates to His glory, the faithful
renewing of His covenants (National and Solemn League), and to a return
to the biblical attainments of the covenanted Reformation.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
Reg Barrow
May 5, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Asterisks indicate the three
largest and most important sections)
1. REG BARROW'S LETTER TO
KNOX RING REGARDING JOHN FRAME'S NEW
BOOK ON WORSHIP -- pp. 10-13
2. _CREDENDA AGENDA'S_
("SAUL'S") ATTACK IN THE "CAVE OF ADULLAM" -- p. 13
3. REG BARROW'S FIRST LETTER
(CHARGES AGAINST DOUG WILSON) -- pp. 13-14
4. ***REG BARROW'S SECOND LETTER (CHARGES AGAINST [WITH A
WITNESS] AND REPLY TO DOUG
WILSON) -- pp. 14-53
5. REG BARROW'S THIRD REPLY
TO DOUG WILSON -- pp. 53-59
6. REG BARROW'S FOURTH REPLY
TO DOUG WILSON -- pp. 59-68
7. ***REG BARROW'S FIFTH REPLY TO DOUG WILSON -- pp. 68-117
8. ***APPENDIX A: A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE UNFOUNDED CHARGES
OF
ANABAPTISM by Greg Price --
pp. 117-139
9. APPENDIX B: PORNOGRAPHY,
THE ANABAPTISTS AND DOUG WILSON'S
CIVIL ANTINOMIANISM by Reg
Barrow -- pp. 139-157
10. APPENDIX C: LARRY
BIRGER'S LARGER AND SHORTER "LETTERS TO THE
EDITOR" OF _CREDENDA
AGENDA_ -- pp. 157-160
11. APPENDIX D: THE TESTIMONY
OF THE SESSION OF THE PURITAN
REFORMED CHURCH OF EDMONTON
REGARDING THIS MATTER -- p. 160
12. APPENDIX E: FOR FURTHER
STUDY OF CLASSICAL PROTESTANTISM AND
THE ATTAINMENTS OF THE SECOND
REFORMATION -- pp. 160-170
1. REG BARROW'S LETTER TO KNOX RING
REGARDING JOHN FRAME'S NEW BOOK
ON WORSHIP
Distributed By:
JOHN OWEN BUTLER
Pastor-Teacher
Beal Heights PCA
Lawton, Oklahoma
United States of America
Moderator, The Knox Ring
INTERNET: jbutler@sirinet.net
WWW: http://www.sirinet.net/~jbutler/index.htm
================== INDEX ===================
Items posted in KR960704 are as follows:
Item #1 From: swrb@swrb.com (Reg Barrow)
Subject: Worship in Spirit and Truth
Paul R. Ipema writes:
(snip)
>
>I am especially interested to see any comments relating to Frame's
assessment
>of the traditional Puritan view of the regulative principle as
"minimalist."
> James Jordan has described this view as "sectarian." [See his
<Liturgical
>Nestorianism and the Regulative Principle
>published by Transfiguration Press, 1994].
>Although I cannot agree with or endorse all of what Professor
>Frame has written, I find Professor Frame's discussion to be useful in
>sorting through this issue as a pastor who wishes to take seriously the
>regulative principle of worship and apply it consistently in our
worship.
Reg Barrow replies:
I've recently written a book review of Kevin Reed's _Canterbury Tales_
which dealt primarily with James Jordan and his heretical views
concerning worship. It is called "A Warning Against the False and
Dangerous Views of James Jordan Concerning Worship." From the quotes
that I have seen here and elsewhere, taken from Frame's new book, I
would say that much of my warning against Jordan would apply equally
well to Frame. This book review may be helpful and is posted on Still
Waters Revival Books (SWRB) web page at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BlastJJ.htm
I have also asked an author that I know (who has already read Frame's
entire book) to produce a review which will warn people of the subtle and
dangerous views that Frame is publicly putting forth.
Kevin Reed's _Canterbury Tales_, is also available (FREE of charge) on
SWRB's web page at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Canterbu.htm
Furthermore, Carlos Eire's book _War Against the Idols: The Reformation of
Worship from Erasmus to Calvin_ is an indispensable aid in researching
this topic - especially since Eire does not have an axe to grind concerning
this issue. More information on Eire's scholarly work (published by
Cambridge University Press) is at:
http://www.swrb.com/newbooks/newbe.htm
I think that Eire's _War Against the Idols_ proves beyond a shadow of a
doubt that Calvin would have excommunicated both Frame and Jordan
without a second thought - given the idolatrous nature of their beliefs
regarding public worship.
I draw the same *general* conclusion at the end of my article "PSALM
SINGING IN SCRIPTURE & HISTORY" (in the section "Psalmody,
Separation,
and the Lord's Supper). This newsletter can be viewed at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/crtpssing.htm
A FREE copy of Calvin's _Necessity of Reforming the Church_, which is most
germane to this subject is also located at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/NRC_ch00.htm
I would also note that those who introduce innovations into the public
worship of God (contrary to the second commandment) are the real
sectarians; for they destroy the unity of the body of Christ. This topic is
covered in its relation to exclusive Psalmody (in a book which I
republished) in two articles titled "The Catholicity of the
Psalter" - found in
_The Psalms in Worship_ edited by John McNaugher (at:
http://www.swrb.com/catalog/m.htm
)
Moreover, the following quote by Jeremiah Burroughs should always be
kept in mind when dealing with the subject of worship:
"The nearer a false worship approaches to a true one, the more
dangerous
it is. Israel came nearer to the true worship of God than the heathens: now
the prophet saith not, Though the heathens be idolators, yet let not Judah
be so too; but, 'Though Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend.'
There was more danger that Judah should be drawn aside by Israel, than
that they should be drawn aside by any of the heathen. And so there is
more danger that we, at this day, should be drawn aside by those that join
with us in many things that are right, than by papists, who are hateful to
us, and whose ways we see to be abominable. There is not so much danger,
especially for those that profess godliness, of being drawn aside by those
who grossly violate the laws of God, as by brethren that join with us in
many things that are right, and come very near to the true worship of
God... We must not approach places calculated to draw us into sin,
especially to false worship... It is dangerous to indulge curiosity in visiting
places of idolatry..."
("Comments on Hosea 4:15 by Jeremiah Burroughs [1599-1646]" cited
in
_The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness_ magazine [vol. 1, #19,
Sept. 10/93, pp. 416-417], Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing,
write: P.O. Box 131, Pottstown, PA 19464 USA for a free sample issue).
FOR FURTHER STUDY:
_Biblical Worship_ by Kevin Reed
_Concerning Close Communion_ by W.J. McKnight
_Shunning the Unlawful Rights of the Ungodly_ by John Calvin
_Reformation Worship and Separation from Idolatry_ by Reg Barrow
_Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ by J.L.
Girardeau
_The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody_ by M.
Bushell
_Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship_ by Greg
Price
_Making Shipwreck of the Faith: Evangelicals and Catholics Together_ by K.
Reed
_The Badge of Popery: Musical Instruments in Public Worship_ by R.J.
George
_Paleopresbyterianism Versus Neopresbyterianism_ by Michael Wagner
_A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ by George Gillespie
_Westminster Confession of Faith_ by the Westminster Divines
_Selected Writings of John Knox_ by John Knox
_Close Communion_ by R.J. George
Sincerely, 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: +1 780 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 780 468 1096
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
END KNOX RING (URL's in "Item #1" above have been updated from
original
posting)
2. _CREDENDA AGENDA'S_ ("SAUL'S")
ATTACK IN THE "CAVE OF
ADULLAM"
Cave of Adullam
Mutterings on the Regnant Follies
Rennis Dodman (i.e. _Credenda Agenda's_ editorial staff-- RB)
Great Experiments in Telepathy
Reg Barrow is the president of Still Waters Revival Books. He hasn't read
John Frame's new book on worship, but he thinks it is heresy anyway. In a
public on-line discussion of the book he calls it "subtle and
dangerous." He
finds Frame's view that we are allowed to sing hymns, whether new and
old, a little hotter than he can handle. And Frame is acting "contrary
to the
second commandment," and is a "real sectarian." And to top
off his
musings, Barrow claims that Calvin would have excommunicated Frame
"without a second thought." And all this insight without reading
the book!
We have not read all Barrow's comments on Frame, and that which we did
read was not read very carefully--but that should present no barrier to
the rigorous exchange of ideas!
(Excerpted from _Credenda Agenda_ magazine, volume 8, number 4)
3. REG BARROW'S FIRST LETTER
(CHARGES AGAINST DOUG WILSON)
Doug:
(This is not a letter to the editor for public use at this time).
I am writing in accordance with Christ's instruction in Mt. 18:15 that we
should seek to settle offences, if possible, in private before going public.
I had hoped you would have done the same with me before printing
"Telepathy." In fact, when I was first told (by one of SWRB's
customers)
about what you had allowed, as editor of _Credenda/Agenda_, to be
printed in this section, I refused to believe him until I had checked your
web page for myself. You not only did not contact me then, but in the
intervening time you have not contacted me in order to address this
matter (though the teaching elder at the church I attend has repeatedly
reminded you of this offence via email). Sadly, this is not only an offence
that separates us as brothers in Christ (viz., your slanderous satire of my
name concerning my the defence of the truth on Knox Ring); we are also
separated by your apparent lack of love (at any time before the printing of
the article in _Credenda_ or since) to privately address your concerns to
me. Notwithstanding, I would much rather do everything in my power to
see this situation resolved in a manner that is pleasing to God (before this
becomes a larger public scandal).
Doug, I have always considered you and those that work with you as
friends. I have carried some of your books, linked you to my web page,
sent copies of your magazine (I get 100 copies of each) all around the
world with our orders (covering the extra postage myself), published your
magazine address in my catalogue in a number of locations (free of charge
and without your solicitation – reaching over 50,000 people), etc. I have
also spoken with you (and some of your associates) on the phone and have
always found the conversation cordial and interesting. I have long prayed
for your work and still continue to do so (even since you slandered me in
your "Telepathy" article). I would have hoped that such previous
good will
between us would have warranted (at least) a personal contact before you
proceeded with attacking me publicly. To say the least I am grieved on a
number of counts. Furthermore, I can easily prove that what you said was
not true, and you certainly can't prove the contrary (i.e. that I had not
read
the Frame book before speaking against it). Yet, in spite of all of our
previously unsuccessful (private) attempts to resolve this matter with you
(through Greg Price), I still think that I should make this one last private
attempt at remedying this situation. I guess I still hope that all my
prayers
(of the past five or six years) for you and those at Credenda/Agenda will
still be answered (especially in regard to your coming up to the
attainments of the covenanted Reformation). Hopefully this information
will give you a little bit of an idea as to why I am reluctant to expose
your
sin to our large public audience – and as to why I have not done so
already (though it would have been perfectly legitimate to do so).
Doug, I plead with you to acknowledge your public violation of the ninth
commandment in this case. You have allowed that which was not true
(about me) to be published in your "Cave of Adullam" column
(_Credenda/Agenda_, Vol. 8, No. 4) – under the pseudonym of "Rennis
Dodman" (thus, this letter also applies to whoever actually wrote the
"Telepathy" piece, though you have not been willing to give us
this name).
I also ask, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you repent of this
public scandal by taking all appropriate steps to indicate your repentance.
If you were to sincerely repent, and print a full retraction in the
"Cave of
Adullam," then I believe that you would have not only made things right
in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of man (Rom. 12:17). This
would also allow me to point people to your retraction, as they bring the
matter up, and quell any ensuing scandal.
I pray that the Lord will grant you both the humility and courage to do
what is equitable in this matter.
Please respond at your earliest possible convenience.
Sincerely,
Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
4. *REG BARROW'S SECOND LETTER
(CHARGES, WITH A WITNESS, AGAINST
AND REPLY TO DOUG WILSON)
REG BARROW WRITES:
Monday, January 20, 1997
Doug:
This is not a letter to the editor, but please consider it as fulfilling the
second step of recovering a wayward brother, in accord with Matt. 18:16.
My witness is Larry Birger, Jr. Should you fail to repent after this letter,
I
will be taking this matter to the church (as Matt. 18:17 commands). Public
testimonies will follow.
Also, I am well aware that I could have immediately rebuked you publicly
for your sin of lying about me in _Credenda/Agenda_ "Cave of
Adullam"
column (_Credenda/Agenda_, Vol. 8, No. 4). But to be absolutely above
reproach, and for the sake of the Gospel, I wanted to go as many extra
miles as I could (though *now* my tone will be much more straight
forward) concerning the public scandal necessitated by what you have
published.
I must also say, that the side issues that we have been drawn into as a
result of your slander (of myself) have certainly caused me to reflect on
the words of the Reformed Presbytery,
"In this age of boasted charity, but really 'detestable neutrality and
indifferency,' it is an irksome and painful task, but a duty, thus to bear
testimony against churches, in which are to be found, no doubt, many
precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. But personal piety
never was, nor possibly can be, the condition of fellowship in the visible
church. To think so, and say so, is one of the most popular delusions of the
present day. It puts the supposed pious man, speaking his experience, in
the place of God, speaking his sovereign will in the Bible. This is the
height
of impiety" (_Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our
Covenanted Reformation_, [1876 edition] SWRB reprint 1995, p. 175).
This whole exercise has certainly been a most "irksome and painful
task,"
but one that I hope will be profitable to you (and to others that may see
these exchanges in the future).
Furthermore, I would also like to state at the outset of this response that
my correspondence has been produced in the prayerful hope (and with the
Christian love that does not suffer sin upon a neighbor, Lev. 19:17) that
you would be granted repentance in regard to your initial lies about me;
and now, that you would also be granted repentance in regard to the
various anti-Reformation, anti-Covenanter and, of course, anti-Scriptural
errors that you espouse (that have been made manifest by your previous
responses to our attempts at reconciliation). I also hope that you noticed
the phrase "many precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty"
in
the citation by the Reformed Presbytery above. It will be useful, as you
read my response, to keep the distinction between an individual (and his
status before the Lord) and the visible church (constitutionally considered)
in the forefront of your mind. Missing, obscuring, or forgetting this
distinction will definitely diminish the usefulness of what I have written,
likely causing the issues to be clouded by emotive responses, unthinking
caricature and the construction of not a few straw men. My hope, in
sending you this second private admonishment (though it would have been
perfectly legitimate to have publicly rebuked you long ago), is that you
will publicly repent before I am forced to take more drastic measures to
clear my name, the name of Still Waters Revival Books and the biblical
truths set forth by the covenanting Reformers of both Reformations (with
regards to the false aspersions which you have cast upon us).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>December 19, 1996
>
>Dear Reg and Pastor Greg,
>
>I want to take the liberty of speaking somewhat plainly. This is not
because
>I am angry or provoked, and certainly not because we despise your
persons or
>the valuable work you have done over the years for the cause of Christ.
Our
>love for you may be difficult for you to see, but rest assured that we
want
>to treat you lawfully with a whole heart (ninth commandment included).
In
>his letter, Reg reminded me of the support you have given our ministry
in
>the past (for which we thank you again), and would only want to remind
you
>that the support and reinforcement was mutual. We promoted and helped
your
>ministry as well, and it saddens us to see you throwing it all down
(what
>appears to me) an anabaptist drain.
REG BARROW WRITES:
That you continue to throw out the word Anabaptist is a clear indication
that you have no understanding of the second Reformation (on the points
in question) or the position that we now occupy. Were Rutherford and the
other "minority" ministers, who separated themselves (to avoid
schism),
from the apostatizing Resolutioners, Anabaptists -- because they valiantly
championed separation from corrupted and corrupting churches? Was
James Renwick, the only minister to uphold faithfully the covenanted
attainments of the Church of Scotland (when he was martyred near the
close of the "killing times") an Anabaptist -- because he
valiantly
championed separation from corrupted and corrupting churches? Before
the second Reformation was Calvin an Anabaptist when he pushed for
excommunication (and civil sanctions) against those who would not
covenant under the _Confession of Faith of Geneva_? What about Knox?
Athanasuis? Paul (2 Thes. 3:6)? the men of Judah (Hosea 4:15-19),
Jeremiah (Jer. 15:15-20), etc.? Hundreds of other examples can be cited. If
these men were Anabaptists, then we are too -- for we (and not you) are
occupying the same ground they did regarding separation. But to say that
these men were Anabaptists is to deny Scripture and the historic Christian
testimony (particularly the first and second Reformations), and this is
exactly what you do every time you call us Anabaptists.
This type of slander (i.e. calling Covenanters Anabaptists) was a common
tactic used by malignants (i.e. covenant opposers) in the days of the Second
Reformation, as I will show in the future if our problems become more
public. Furthermore, many of the positions that you have publicly
espoused (regarding Christian liberty, the church, civil government,
subscription to confessions, worship, open communion, etc.) are in reality
much closer to the Anabaptist positions than they are to the position of the
best Reformers (as will also be made known publicly in the future, if
necessary).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>The culmination of your doctrinal
>"progress" will not be at all what you envision now. My
distinct perception
>is that, unless you are careful, all your work for reformation is going
to
>disappear in a tiny little perfectionistic puff of smoke.
REG BARROW WRITES:
How did you arrive at this "distinct perception"? You know nothing
of the
great things that God is now doing from our base here in Edmonton -- or
what his plans for us are (not to mention that the matter of size is
irrelevant; truth is what we seek). Nevertheless, we have, by the grace of
God, distributed 115,000 catalogues in the last 16 months (and are aiming
at distributing between 200,000 and 500,000 catalogues in 1997),
published over 500 books in the last 5 years (or so), distributed over 1
million tracts and newsletters (many of them free of charge), planted three
covenanted churches (with upwards of 100 new possible plants marked on
the computer -- one as far away as Australia) and at the present rate we
are getting well over 500,000 hits a year on our web page (where we offer
over 100 free Reformation books and other articles). Many other projects
are in the works, but the point is we do not "despise the day of small
things" -- for in our prayers we are asking for much more (Eph. 3:20)
--
viz. the re-establishment of covenanted Presbyterian nations and national,
faithful, covenanted Presbyterian churches worldwide.
I guess when we see God honoring our "tiny little perfectionistic
puff" with
even the limited success noted above, we are exceedingly thankful; and the
increased attacks (generally, not necessarily referring to you) from the
wicked one just seem to spur us on.
J.A. Alexander's comment on Isaiah 6:13 also provides an appropriate
picture of our contemporary situation concerning the spiritual vitality of
the church,
"However frequently the people may seem to be destroyed, there shall
still
be a surviving remnant, and however frequently that very remnant may
appear to perish, there shall still be a remnant of the remnant left, and
this
indestructible residuum shall be the holy seed, the true church."
That we may be relatively small *now* is no deterrent (and it never has
been to those who love Christ) to continue to follow hard upon "the
whole
counsel of God;" for we are assured that the faith that we publish will
one
day cover the whole earth (Isa. 2:2-5; Ezek. 47:1-12; Ps. 72; Matt. 13:31-
33). Furthermore, seeing that the Dragon presently gives his power unto
the beast and that the testimony of the two witnesses (who prophesy
during the great apostasy, Rev. 11:3) is almost silenced, only further
attests to the truth of the classical Protestant eschatology of Historicism
--
contrary to the Jesuit planted views of Futurism and Preterism (see our
free article, "Apocalyptic Interpretation," on the origins of the
six major
eschatological systems, at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/ApocInt.htm
or
write for a free copy of this tract).
By the way, if you take the reckoning of some of the old Historicists, who
place the beginning of the millennium sometime in the next hundred years
or so, who knows, this revival of the covenanted Reformation -- which has
begun to be published from Edmonton (with hundreds of the classics from
the best Presbyterian and Reformed authors being placed back in print for
the first time in centuries) -- could be the precursor to preparing the
nations for that blessed period which is to come (cf. Thomas Houston's
_Unity and Uniformity in the Church_, [1881] SWRB reprint 1996 and
Appendix D in _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ by John Cunningham
[1843], SWRB reprint 1996). I am no date setter, but it is interesting to
think (and pray) about, for what took place during the days of the writing
and international subscriptions to the Solemn League and Covenant has
been cited before as a foretaste of the millennial glory to come. The
Reformed Presbytery writes,
"These modern pigmies are too far dwarfed in intellectual stature to
measure the altitude, of our glorious Covenanted Reformation -- a
Reformation which, imbedded in the law and the covenant of God, has
already brought civil and ecclesiastical freedom to many millions; and
which is doubtless destined to be laid in the foundation of reconstructed
society in the millennial period of the world" (_A Short Vindication of
Our
Covenanted Reformation_, [1879] SWRB reprint 1996, p. 4).
James Kerr, on the Sabbath, June 20th, 1880, in a sermon preached in
Greyfriar's Churchyard, in Edinburgh, titled "A Third Reformation
Necessary: or, the Piety, Principles, and Patriotism of Scotland's
Covenanted
Martyrs; With Application to the Present Times," makes the same point
concerning the monumental character of the international transactions that
transpired during the Covenanters' combat with the forces of antichrist.
While also giving us great insight into some of the most important battles
of Second Reformation warfare, Kerr proclaims, regarding the combat of
these faithful witnesses,
"They stood for the Supreme Authority of the Holy Scriptures; for the
Exclusive Headship of the Lord Jesus over the Church; for the Church's
independent spiritual jurisdiction and power; for the Divine right of
Presbytery; for the purity of worship in the Church and the Church's
freedom from all unauthorized rites and ceremonies. They stood for every
pin of the tabernacle, for every item of truth to which they had attained...
'Whose faith follow.' Let us embrace those doctrines affecting the Church's
existence, privileges and prosperity, for which the martyrs suffered, and
let us imitate their fidelity to the high attainments of a preceding period.
The great Scriptural doctrines for which they were honoured to contend
and which constituted the Church's glory, are still more or less lightly
esteemed by even many professing Christians and ecclesiastical
denominations... (A)rminianism is making rapid strides to popularity.
Dishonour is done to the royal prerogative of Christ as Zion's King by those
Churches that appeal to or base the claim of rights upon the Revolution
Settlement -- a Settlement that proceeded upon Erastian principles and left
many of the attainments for which the martyrs suffered in the oblivion to
which the Stuarts had consigned them... The doctrine of Christ's Exclusive
Headship over His own Church, and of the freedom of the Church under her
exclusive head, requires to be vindicated and testified for against all
modern departures therefrom. There is need to maintain and propagate
the doctrine of the Divine right of the Presbyterian form of Church
government, for at the present time only two of the Churches -- and these
among the smallest -- hold this doctrine in all its Scriptural completeness.
There is a need to maintain the high scriptural doctrine concerning the
modes of worship in the Church, that no rite or ceremony is to be
introduced into the forms of worship for which an express prescription,
direct or indirect, cannot be produced from God's Own Word. The additions
to the Church's worship of forms of human invention, and called for in
order to the gratification of mere religious fashion, constitute one of the
saddest signs of the present time. 'As though God has been defective,' as
Charnock writes with reference to such innovators, 'in providing for His
own honour in His institutions, and modelling His own service, but stood in
need of our directions and the *caprichios* of our brains. In this they do
not seem to climb above God, yet they set themselves on the throne of God,
and would grasp one end of His sceptre in their own hands. They do not
attempt to take the crown from God's head but discover a bold ambition to
shuffle their hairy scalps under it, and wear a part of it upon their own.'
**By the unflinching maintenance and profession of these doctrines, then,
we are to prove ourselves the legitimate descendants of Scotland's
Covenanted Martyrs.** This duty may draw down upon us reproach and
shame, but, as the doctrines are Scriptural, the shame, like that of the
martyrs, is transformed into glory. These doctrines are not now popular
nor fashionable; still they are in advance of this age and prevailing
ecclesiastical opinions, and they shall be popular and fashionable in the
Church everywhere when 'God shall help her, and that at the breaking of
the morning.' They shall have a resurrection with power, when Zion shall
be set upon the mountains, and when the glory of her King shall array her,
they shall be triumphant when the whole banner for the truth shall wave
upon the battlements of the Millennial Church of Jesus" (Cited in
_Sermons
Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ [1880 ed., SWRB reprint
1996], pp. 32-35, emphases added).
Hetherington, concerning the Solemn League and Covenant (the epitome of
second Reformation attainments), also comments that "no man who is able
to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and its aim,
will deny it to be the wisest, the sublimest, and the most sacred document
ever framed by uninspired men" (_History of the Westminster Assembly
of Divines_, [1856] SWRB reprint 1993, p. 134).
When the churches and nations are granted repentance in (or preparing
for) the millennium they will be found "going forth by the footsteps of
the
flock" (Song 1:8) and not turned "aside by the flock of thy
companions" (i.e.
those that appear religious but are actually a hindrance to the work of the
building of Christ's kingdom, Song 1:7, cf. Douglas' _Strictures on
Occasional
Hearing_, [1820] SWRB reprint 1996); and there is no "footstep of the
flock" more clearly distinguished in the bedrock of history (since the
days
of the apostles) than the Solemn League and Covenant; followed by those
footsteps of second Reformation attainments outlined by Kerr above
(concerning the primacy of Scripture as it is applied to purity of worship,
doctrine, and government in Christ's church).
By God's most magnificent grace this Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian
testimony is now also *our* testimony (as it is applied to the present
circumstances in our day); exhibiting another aspect of truth (i.e.
testimony
bearing) which has been buried among the ruins of the covenanted
Reformation by the ecclesiastical beast (cf. Steele's _Notes on the
Apocalypse_, pp. 192f., 306, etc.) as he is seen to rise up in the apostate
modern churches. Regarding specific testimony-bearing (both for the truth
and against apostasy) Howie comments, in his 1779 Preface to the original
edition of _Sermons in Times of Persecution_, on the specific content of
Covenanter preaching (as cited below). Think hard, Doug, as you read this
fine summary of the covenanted or second Reformation. See if your claims
to be Presbyterian, a "classic Protestant," and a promoter of the
covenanted
Reformation resemble anything like what really took place during this
watershed period of history. If you are an honest man I think it will be
becoming more and more apparent (as you read quotes like this, and the
rest of this letter) that you are far from the biblical attainments of the
covenanted Reformation. What these saints fought and often died for is a
far cry from the trendy, fashionable sub-Calvinism which you promote. But
here are Howie's comments,
"In the following discourse, a doctrinal banner is lifted up for the
divine
right of Presbytery -- that is, the doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government of the Reformed Church of Scotland, as contained in her
excellent Standards, Confession of Faith, Catechisms, etc. But how stands
the case in this with us at present? For, not to mention these
Machiavellians, court parasites, Platonic saints, or baptized heathens,
whose wit is either some lascivious hint, or some broken jest upon
Scripture, and who can profess one religion to-day and another to-morrow,
or turn every way wherever the ministerial magnet leads them; or these
gentlemen of the *Beau-monde*, who ofttimes distinguish themselves by
the name of free-thinkers, under which may be comprehended all
Atheists, all Deists, Unitarians, Pelagians, Socinians, Arminians, etc. How
many different sects are there amongst us, whose principles (if they have
any) say that the government and discipline of the Church of Christ is a
thing purely ambulatory, that may be moulded or metamorphosed into
any form or fashion that best suits their local circumstances and the
political constitution of the kingdoms of this world will admit of. For, not
to
mention Episcopalians, Independents, anabaptists, Glassites, Bereans,
Methodists, and Moravians, such a loose and vague scheme of sentiment
now obtains amongst many of the Presbyterian persuasion that, under the
notion of what they call charity, moderation, and liberty of conscience,
they can admit of almost all the forementioned tribes unto their
communion upon a bare supposition of their visible saintship (a common
error in our day--RB), or what they term sincerity in the main, without
any other test of orthodoxy than what they define the fundamentals of
Christianity. Every other creed, confession, or article of faith (if
compiled
by men, though founded upon and agreeable to Scripture) must be
reprobated and discarded; and all formal testimony bearers are accounted
by them precisians, bigots, men of narrow, contracted judgements, and
illiberal sentiments, 'The Word of God (say they) is our testimony.' But
what is all this? Almost every heretic that appears in the Church will tell
us the same. Indeed a better testimony than this cannot be. But then the
Word of God properly can be no man's testimony, it is God's own
testimony. It is above eighteen times, in one portion of Scripture so called
(Ps 119). 'we declare unto you the testimony of God,' says the apostle. It
is
also called the testimony of Jesus, 'The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy.' And unto every truth, particularly that called the present truth,
every one of His professing people is to give a explicit adherence, and this
is called their testimony. 'And when they shall have finished their
testimony,' and they 'overcame by the word of their testimony.' But to
tantalize or soothe up the minds of the credulous they must needs own the
thirty-three chapters of the Confession too. And who thanks them to own
that which their own hand-writing binds them unto? But as this seems
now a point of mere form, it will likely in a little [while--RB] go out of
fashion [how prophetic--RB]; for, while some are using means to be
disentangled from that obligation, others subscribe with a mental
reservation (like Arius's paper [and the John Frame's of our day--RB]) in
their bosom; a third, to anticipate all this, must need engage with his own
explanation upon it. But hear the divine mandate, 'Son of man, shew them
the house, and all the forms, and all the ordinances thereof.' 'Hold fast
the
form of sound words.'" (Cited in _Sermons Delivered in Times of
Persecution in Scotland_ [1880 ed., SWRB reprint 1996], pp. 62-63).
Is this your testimony for the covenanted Reformation, Doug? Close
communion? Divine Right Presbyterianism? "Strict regulativism"
regarding
worship (as you would call it)? Separation from apostates (including
Arminians)? Strict subscriptionism (the only subscriptionism in keeping
with the third and ninth commandments)? etc. etc.
Furthermore, so far from believing our work will "disappear in a tiny
little
puff of perfectionistic smoke," as is your dim prognosis, we are very
excited at the ramifications of this revival of the covenanted reformation
here, and increasingly, elsewhere. Our faithful forbears expected great
things to come of the covenanted reformation, and so do we, and thus we
cry exultingly and confidently (as good postmillennialists) with James
Guthrie (spoken as he stood upon the scaffold in anticipation of the
martyrs crown) "The Covenants, the Covenants shall yet be Scotland's
reviving!" And, we would add, not only Scotland's reviving, but that of
the
whole world!
Moreover, and especially in the light of the above (and following)
quotations and Scripture proofs, it is *not* perfectionism to insist on
constitutional adherence to Reformation attainments at a corporate level
(ecclesiastically and civilly) -- and it certainly isn't in any way akin to
the
anabaptist heresy! To the contrary, it is *essential* to sanctification,
both
individually and corporately, to require maintenance of the growth in
grace that God has granted thus far. As Scripture commands of individual
believers: "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk
by
the same rule, let us mind the same thing" (Phil. 3:16). Does this not
apply,
*a fortiori*, to the moral person ecclesiastically (and civilly also)? If
not,
how can one ever obey the fifth commandment at a corporate level? How
can anyone know what they have "already attained", if they do not
understand and know the preceding history upon which to differentiate
what they consider biblical attainments from what are not biblical
attainments? God often calls His people to remember those who have been
faithful in following Christ (Heb. 11) and the Old Testament is full of
examples in which we see God directing his people to hearken back to the
attainments and defections of the past (Judg. 2:20-22; Mal. 2:8-10; Dan.
9:16; Deut. 1:35; Deut. 4, etc.), as a means of teaching them present public
and private duties and responsibilities.
Furthermore, in conjunction with this point on attainments, you seem to
have no idea about how history is a term of fellowship. At a very simple
level this principle can be illustrated in the relationship between parents
and children. Tell me, how would a child obey the fifth commandment if he
did not know who his parents were? Does this not hold true regarding an
individual's responsibility concerning civil and ecclesiastical government
in
their capacity as moral persons? -- though as Rutherford points out in
_Lex, Rex_ there are some important differences that need to be accounted
for, between natural parental authority and civil or ecclesiastical
authority,
when one is attempting to determine the lawfulness of any given
"power;"
cf. _Lex, Rex_ pages 3-5 and especially page 71.
The Reformed Presbytery gives us the answer concerning the question of
history as term of fellowship (in *their* testimony on this point):
"Nor otherwise can a Christian know the time or place of his birth, or
the
persons whom God commands him to honor as his father and mother, than
by uninspired testimony; and the same is true of his covenant obligations,
if baptized in infancy. Against all who ignorantly or recklessly reject or
oppose history as a bond of fellowship, in the family, in the state, but
especially in the church, we thus enter our solemn and uncompromising
protest." (_Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted
Reformation_, [1876 edition] SWRB reprint 1995, p. 178).
It is clear, then, that we can obey the fifth commandment with respect to
our natural parents only by uninspired historical testimony. Equally so, it
is only by uninspired historical testimony that we can know who our
ecclesiastical and civil "parents" are, and so obey the fifth
commandment
respecting them.
This is why we *must* require adherence to historical attainments in
reformation as a bond of fellowship if truly we are to promote the unity,
purity, and growth of the church. If we do not demand (as do the
Scriptures -- I Cor. 11:19; Eph. 4:11-16; Phil. 3:16; II Cor. 10:8; 13:8,10;
etc.) that history be a bond of fellowship, we will have an impossible time
determining, with certainty, if we are submitting to our mother or to a
harlot (ecclesiastically), to our father or to the beast (civilly). God
*commands* submission to lawful authority, but nowhere in his word does
he give us the names of the authorities to whom we are to submit.
Likewise, he *commands* us *not* to submit to unlawful authority, but,
again, does not tell us specifically who these alleged "powers"
are. In the
nature of the case, then, we must look *outside* Scripture (using Scripture
as our criteria) in order to *obey* Scripture. With reference to the church,
those possessing lawful authority from Christ cannot be determined simply
by an abstract, ahistorical test: it is impossible to judge whether an
alleged
authority is working for the truth or against it (2 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 4:11-16)
apart from an evaluation of the level of sanctification granted the church
thus far in redemptive history (Prov. 22:28; Rev. 2:25), and whether that
alleged authority is maintaining and building upon this sanctification or
rather destroying it. Thus, Paul describes his lawful authority as
"power
which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction" (2
Cor.
13:10). Backsliding from attained growth in grace (i.e. corporate
sanctification) is not edification, but destruction. Therefore, no
"authority"
working against any of these former biblical attainments bears God's
stamp of approval: God has granted no authority for backsliding. For more
on this topic see my _A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting
Redivivus_ FREE at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovDebRB.htm
(or as
a bound photocopy from SWRB), especially the last half (in the sections)
dealing with ecclesiastical and civil attainments. A very helpful exposition
of these principles, as they apply to the civil government, is also found in
Greg Price's, _Biblical Civil Government vs. the Beast; and the Basis for
Civil
Resistance_, FREE at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibCG_GP.htm
(or as
a bound photocopy from SWRB).
To put a little sharper point on this part of the discussion, Shield's
classic
_A Hind Let Loose_ ([1678, 1797 ed.] SWRB reprint 1995) demonstrates
how separation from backsliding churches has long been considered the
classical Protestant position,
"5. 'It is granted by *all that write against separatists*, that
separation
from a church is lawful, when the case so falleth out, that union cannot be
kept up with her without sin,' Voet. Polit. Eccles. p. 68 quest 17.
6. The grave author of Rectius Instruendem Confut.. 3 dial. chap. pag. 7
&c.
'Allows, every separation is not schism, even from the church which hath
essentials; yea, and more than essentials: if it be from those (though never
so many) who are *drawing back from whatever piece of duty and
integrity is attained*; for this is still to be held fast, according to many
scripture commands. So Elias, when God's covenant was forsaken, was as
another Athanasius (I and I only am left) in point of tenacious
integrity"
(empahses added).
It is interesting that the best of the older Reformed writers designated our
position (regarding attainments and separation) as one of "tenacious
integrity," while you and the backslidden modern church rain down (in
your ignorance) slander and derisive comments on the classic Protestant
position.
Clarkson, in _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting..._, also proves
(by
numerous Scripture proofs, specific acts of Assembly, the Solemn League
and Covenant, etc.) how retrogression from attainments (corporately)
makes a church unfit for ecclesiastical fellowship. He documents exactly
what historical attainments were achieved during the second (or
covenanted) Reformation and how these are to be reflected in our
ecclesiastical terms of church communion. Reason 14 in this book
("Presbyterian Dissenters decline the Communion of this Church; because
she is unsound and sinful in the Terms of her Communion") is an
exceedingly valuable section of writing and should be pursued by all those
who are willing to take an honest look at what we (in Edmonton) are also
maintaining at the close of the twentieth century (with application to the
contemporary "churches"). I can't imagine anyone reading this
section of
_Plain Reasons_, never mind the whole book, and then proclaiming any of
the modern *Presbyterian* denominations lawfully constituted visible
churches.
With a return to the understanding of these lost Reformation truths we
will again see the power of the the Lord's remnant testimony -- as "the
woman in the wilderness" (Rev. 12:6) cries out against the civil and
ecclesiastical beast (and their usurping of Christ's royal prerogatives).
This
is beautifully illustrated by the Reformed Presbytery (the last covenanted
Reformed Presbyterian Presbytery) in their _Act, Declaration and
Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_,
"Likewise the presbytery testify against all ministerial or church
communion with such, who, though they may occupy the place of office-
bearers in the church of Christ, yet are destitute of those qualifications
indispensably required by the church's Head, or enter not into their office
by the door he has appointed in his word, own another head than Christ, or
apostatize and *fall from the truth* and cause of Christ, *formerly*
espoused and sworn to by them in a church capacity; against all active
owning and countenancing of such, by attending upon any of their corrupt
ministrations, or receiving any ordinances from such, to whom the Lord
has denied his blessing. Against all voluntary contracting with prelates,
curates, or such officers of human invention in the church, for paying
tithes or other dues unto them, as unto lawful, scriptural parish ministers.
For besides that there is nothing due unto them, their office having no
divine authority; so there being under the New Testament a change of the
priesthood, there is also a change of the law, respecting tithes; according
to
Heb. 7:12; Rev. 2:20, etc. By all which it appears, from what is above
asserted and declared concerning these two divine distinct ordinances, the
ministry and magistracy, that the principles maintained thereanent by the
presbytery, are nothing else than an endeavour, as a judicatory of the Lord
Jesus Christ, constituted in his name, *to hold fast the church of
Scotland's
testimony*, agreeable to the scriptures of truth, her confession and
covenants, fundamental acts and constitutions both of church and state;
and this, according to the command of the church's sole King and Head;
Rev. 2:25, and 3:11. And what is testified against (above--RB), is, in the
nature of it, an homologation of the church's faithful opposition to
*backsliders, in their course of defection, from the national attainments in
religion and reformation*, resisting even unto blood, striving against
sin"
(pp. 202-203, emphases added to highlight sections resting on the
foundation of the biblical doctrine of attainments).
(The preceding comments are also inextricably linked to the matter of
*close communion*, which is the classical Protestant position. I have
already written on this subject and thus refer you to my _Calvin, Close
Communion and the Coming Reformation_ [it is available FREE of charge at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CalvinCC.htm
or you
can write us for a free copy of the hard copy version].)
In sum, we are not "Reformed Finneyites" as you calumniate, but
are
simply adhering to the Scriptures' command to try "them which say they
are apostles [or any other leaders in the church -- RB], and are not"
(Rev.
2:2). We do this by Scripturally evaluating, in the light of the growth in
sanctification God has granted to his church, whether such alleged leaders
are using their authority for edification (by holding fast what Christ has
given his church) or for destruction. In doing so, we affirm that,
*essentially*, there are not differing terms of communion for Christ's
church throughout history. However, we also affirm (with the Scriptures)
that it is only in history that these essential terms can be faithfully
applied, expounded, and defended. Thus, what was not explicitly required
as a term of communion at an earlier date must be explicitly required at a
later date, for a challenge to that portion of the truth has been made at
some later point (not all such challenges occurred within the first
century),
and it is incumbent upon all generations thereafter to maintain the
testimony emitted by her faithful predecessors. 'For there must be also
heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest
among you" (I Cor. 11:19). Although we are called to be
"perfect" (Matt.
5:48) we are not "perfectionistic," but are simply upholding what
is
absolutely necessary for true obedience to the fifth commandment. We
value the unity, peace, and purity of Zion so highly that we will not suffer
the freedom God has granted through previous reformations to be
encroached, "No, not for an hour" (Gal. 2:5).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>I realize you may
>feel that we are now in "controversy mode" and it may be easy
to blow off
>what we are saying as expressions driven by that controversy. But please
>hear me out. I am not sure that you really understand how you all come
>across to those who are your friends.
REG BARROW WRITES:
The problem is not in our perception of how we look to "our
friends,"
(though I don't know many friends that lie about me [as in your
"Telepathy" mudslinging], and against the Reformation, publicly
[by calling
the modern day Reformers "perfectionists' and
"anabaptists."]), the
problem is among those who have apostatized from the faith (in various
areas). That, in the hardness of their hearts, these "friends"
become angry
when we expose their sin, is a sign of their backsliding, *not* our
unfaithfulness or lack of understanding (cf. _Alexander and Rufus_
throughout). I pray that you will take this to heart before you are
judicially stricken with more blindness (II Thess. 2:10-12) than you are
already exhibiting. Moreover, many of our friends are repenting of the sins
that we are now pointing out, as we by God's grace did ourselves when
these things were revealed to us. That the great Reformation truths which
we are publishing are shaking up the comfortable neopresbyterians (PCA,
OPC, RPCNA, etc.), sub-Reformed "evangelicals" (whether they be
Independents, Arminians, Baptists, Charismatics, CRC, etc.),
Reconstructionists, Lutherans, etc. (and that some, in their folly oppose
themselves regarding the covenanted Reformation), is to be expected --
this has always been the case. Thankfully, many others are being granted
repentance. The cleansing of the temple (individually, ecclesiastically and
civilly) is never accomplished without controversy. Anyone who thinks
otherwise is just not familiar with Scripture or history (John 2:13-17; Acts
17:6ff.; Acts 16:20ff.; Ezek. 16:2; etc.)
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>Public offenses may be addressed publicly. This is how Christ dealt with
the
>Pharisees, and how Paul dealt with Peter at Antioch. This is how (in one
>respect) you dealt with Frame. He had written a public book, and public
>responses to it are quite acceptable. You had no responsibility to go to
>Frame privately before responding to his book
REG BARROW WRITES:
Agreed, and the only reason that I have taken the non-public route (thus
far) regarding the lies that you have printed about me was in the hopes
that you would have already publicly repented (and thus saved yourself
the future loss of credibility that will occur when these matters are made
public, and it is demonstrated that you have lied in what you printed
about me). Even some of my customers, after they had asked me about
your "Telepathy" smear and then heard my side of the story,
thought that
you would repent -- maybe this engendered some false hope on my part
(though I still pray that you will be granted repentance).
Furthermore, and most importantly, throughout your last reply to me *you
do not answer the one major charge that I was bringing against you*: This
charge remains and is that *what you printed about me in
_Credenda/Agenda_ was a lie*. You did not even address this charge. Did
you lie or did you tell the truth? If you told the truth please prove that I
had not read Frame's book, as you printed in _Credenda/Agenda_. I can
easily prove otherwise.
The question here is not whether I had studied enough of Frame to say
what I did; the question is whether you lied or not. You said that I had not
read Frame's book. I had read some of it. Thus, you publicly lied about me.
This is the sin of which you need to repent.
Keep in mind that you did not print that I had not read *enough* of
Frame's book to make the charges that I did (even if that was what you
were thinking, as your leters to Greg Price seem to indicate): you said that
I had not read it *at all*.
If you want to make other charges, as you do below (regarding whether I
had read *enough* of Frame), that is a different question; but it is not the
question that I am addressing -- it is also not what you printed. You lied
about me publicly and you need to repent.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>, and we had no responsibility
>to come to you before responding to your public denunciation of Frame.
(And
>again, the issue for us is not the fact of your disagreement with Frame;
the
>problem was how you managed your disagreement with him -- i.e.
unscripturally).
REG BARROW WRITES:
Again, this is *not* what you printed, and therefore this is *not* the
issue.
The issue is that you printed what was not true about me and you are
unwilling to repent.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>With regard to the controversy over Frame, we would be willing to print
>something like this from Reg: "I acknowledge that I was out of line
by
>publicly declaring on the justice of excommunicating John Frame without
>myself having evaluated the evidence in question according to the
highest
>standards of evidential rigor required by such a serious
pronouncement."
REG BARROW WRITES:
I would never agree to printing this because it is not true. I had seen
Frame's previous debate in the _Westminster Theological Journal_ and his
book is just repeating many the same heresies for which he was challenged
there. I had read (and had had read to me) more than enough of Frame's
Reformation-denying heresies in his new book to assert that anyone who
knows even a little about what took place at the Reformation would
correctly conclude that Frame would have been excommunicated by all the
faithful churches of those days. Moreover, I am not bound to satisfy a
"standard of evidential rigor" that arises, not from sound
scriptural or
historical scholarship, but from your ignorance of the Reformation
doctrines regarding worship, the sacraments, and the church. I have not
only read numerous pre-twentieth century books concerning worship, the
sacraments, and the church, but I have also read a number of the modern
books that attempt to deal with these questions -- and, in my opinion,
Frame's book on worship is the worst I have seen yet. Additionally, the
Koran can be sharply denounced without having read all of it (as you
yourself readily admitted in an earlier correspondence), and so can
heretics like Frame, whose folly is manifest unto all with eyes to see (II
Tim. 3:9).
What I said on the Knox Ring regarding Frame was true and totally
appropriate -- and I am grieved that others had not publicly rebuked
Frame, in this manner, previous to my testimony. If we lived in the
covenanting days Frame would have not only been excommunicated, but
he would have also been proceeded against with negative civil sanctions.
Are there no David's in the land who will take on our modern Goliaths (i.e
those who have become the chief enemies of the Lord's covenanted Zion by
taunting the church with their attainment-denying heresies)? Have those
who profess themselves shepherds grown so dull that they can watch the
sheep being mauled and carried away by those who prey upon the weak
and sickly in the flock -- and yet not even lift their voices against such
folly? What Frame promotes (regarding worship) is closer to a circus than
the worship commanded by God for use in the church of Christ. But, again,
what you said in "Telepathy" (about what I said) was a lie and
totally
inappropriate. Simply put, **that** is the issue: cease your puerile
evasions
and deal with it!
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>We
>would be glad to print something like this, and we would be happy then
to
>include something from us on our continued fellowship both with you and
with
>John Frame. And if your conscience will not permit you to make such a
>statement, we nevertheless want to continue in fellowship with you, if
you
>would be kind enough to permit it.
REG BARROW WRITES:
We have no ecclesiastical fellowship with you (and you would not be
allowed to be a member in our church -- because of your aberrant beliefs
and practices), so I will assume that you are talking about private
fellowship. As long as you will hear the truth and not oppose it, then this
can continue -- but you are perilously close to putting an end to even that
(2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>We do not suppose that such disagreements
>as we are having necessarily require nefarious or dishonest motives on
the
>part of the other. We assume this of you; please consider that as a
>possibility from your vantage as well.
REG BARROW WRITES:
I am not (nor have I ever been) talking about your motives (because I do
not know them -- my telepathic skills are a little rusty); I'm talking about
what you *did.* Again, the issue which started this controversy between us
is: Was what you printed in _Credenda/Agenda_ about me true or was it
false? I maintain that it was a lie and that you need to repent of this lie.
The smokescreens that you keep throwing up do not refer to what you
printed or what the initial point of controversy was (and is) between us
(though the consequence of your initial attack on me has stirred up
numerous other areas of disagreement). *You printed*, referring to my
comments regarding Frame's book: "all this insight without reading the
book." You *did not print* "all this insight without reading
*enough* of the
book." If you would have printed the latter statement then I would have
just brushed it off as your misinformed opinion; but you printed the
former words and these words are violations of the ninth commandment --
because I had read some of the book (which I can easily prove, and which
was already clearly stated in my comments on the Knox-ring).
Furthermore, as previously noted, I had also seen the interchange that
took place (a number of years ago) in the _Westminster Theological
Journal_ in which Frame was pushing many of the same heresies
(regarding worship) which he repeats in his book. He has been answered
before (though not sternly rebuked), showing that others are well aware of
his deviations from the classical Protestant views concerning worship. By
the way, the views on worship which Frame espoused in the _Westminster
Theological Journal_ were also worthy, in any duly constituted church, of
excommunication. That the PCA does not excommunicate John Frame (and
all the others in that declining denomination that deny the regulative
principle) is just one more clear demonstration of their apostasy.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>If you permit, I would like to take a paragraph or more to answer a
number
>of the various questions which have come up between us, and then move
on to
>address what I consider to be the root problem. Pastor Greg, you asked
if
it
>had occurred to me that I had a duty to contact Reg in order to remove
the
>offence. First, I thought you were interceding on his behalf and so I
did
>not respond to him directly. Secondly, with regard to the principle, I
have
>contacted Reg as many times as he contacted John Frame, and we were
*both*
>within scriptural boundaries. Third, I am more than happy to contact Reg
>directly in order to remove any grounds of offense between us (if you
all
>think that this would be profitable). I suggest a phone conversation
which
>may communicate some nuances which are beyond the black and white of
these
>letters. Would that be agreeable?
REG BARROW WRITES:
I have nothing against this, but I do wonder why you didn't call me earlier.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>With regard to covenanted reformation, you asked if we really were
promoting
>the same thing. Please check my article in Antithesis written years ago
>entitled "Covenant Evangelism."
REG BARROW WRITES:
You seem to have little (or no) idea about what we are talking about when
we say "covenanted Reformation" -- your article in _Antithesis_
notwithstanding. We are not talking about a *general* application of
covenants to a few aspects of Christian concern: we are talking about
*specific* historical attainments (and they are not attainments unless they
are agreeable to the Word of God) concerning the moral persons of the
church of Christ, and of the nations (cf. _A Short Vindication of Our
Covenanted Reformation_ by the Reformed Presbytery and Samuel
Rutherford's "How Covenants Bind Us," in chapter 21 of his _Free
Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ [1649]).
Even the little you seem to understand about the descending obligation of
lawful covenants would only serve to exhibit further your spiritual
adultery in the matters in which we differ. In your article you speak of the
continuing obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant -- thus
sanctioning it as a legitimate (and therefore containing no matter
disagreeable to the Word of God) covenant. Forgetting civil obligations for
the moment, please tell me: If this was a binding covenant (and as you
seem to understand it can only be binding so long as it is in accord with
the Word of God), when did the Presbyterian church (descending, in her
purest form, as she did from the original covenanting church, the Church of
Scotland) come out from under the covenanted uniformity "in religion,
confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and
catechising," sworn 350-odd years ago?
Are you aware that the Westminster Standards, including the _Directory
for Public Worship_, were produced in fulfillment of the Solemn League
and Covenant (cf. the title pages of this and the other documents produced
by the Assembly, which read, "as a part of the covenanted uniformity in
religion betwixt the churches of Christ in the kingdoms of Scotland,
England, and Ireland")? Are you aware that the _Directory for Public
Worship_ mandated only the singing of Psalms in public worship (as a part
of the covenanted uniformity in worship)? This is easily demonstrated by
consulting Robert Baillie's _Letters and Journals_ ([1647-1661] SWRB
reprint 1994), pp. 3, 12, 21, 60, 97, 525-556; Michael Bushell's _Songs of
Zion_, (Crown and Covenant, second edition, 1993), p. 190ff.; and the _Acts
of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the Year 1638 to
the Year 1649 Inclusive_, ([1682] SWRB reprint 1996), pp. 228, 238, 172,
353-354. In fact, I defy anyone to produce one shred of evidence that the
making of a separate "hymnal" (full of man-made compositions) was
ever
discussed at the Westminster Assembly (much less presented to
parliament, as was all the work of the Assembly), or the Scottish General
Assembly (from 1638-1649, or long after) -- which General Assembly
ecclesiastically ratified the Westminster Standards. Regarding worship this
speaks to the original intent of the framers of the Westminster standards
and exposes how prevalent the sin of perjury is among those ministers
who have taken vows, without mental reservation, to uphold these
standards -- while they continue to practice (even in ignorance) anything
other than exclusive Psalmody. The battles over the Psalter (i.e. the
debates concerning translators, publication, civil and ecclesiastical
ratification, etc.) are all well documented; yet strangely, not one word was
ever recorded about any debates, votes or proclamations regarding a man-
made "hymnal." This is truly amazing, if a human
"hymnal" had indeed
ever been considered (never mind ratified by the different levels of
church and civil government) as in keeping with the covenanted
uniformity in worship aimed at by these divines -- given the "strict
regulativist" makeup of both the Westminster Assembly and the Scottish
General Assembly. On top of this these divines did not even need to
mention the judaizing heresy of the use of musical instruments in public
worship, because that was not an issue among the Reformed folk of the
day. Even the civil magistrate of that period knew enough about Scripture
to provide for the eradication of organs, "along with (the--RB) other
remains of Popery" (_Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland from the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_, [1682] SWRB
reprint 1996, p. 228). Those that celebrated Popish holy-days like the
"Christ-mass" were also censured (in accord with the Scottish
_First Book of
Discipline_ [1560, here even civilly] and _Acts of the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland_, p. 285 and Scripture). This is not to mention
second Reformation views concerning close communion, ultra "strict
subscriptionism" (as you call it) and the many other points (all
agreeable to
the Word of God) included in the original intent of the source documents of
the Covenanted Reformation (what you have already termed
"Anabaptistic," "perfectionistic," etc.).
I will not enter into this any further now, but if you do not repent after
this letter, this whole subject (of the specific nature of the covenanted
uniformity of worship [doctrine, government, etc.] called for [in Scripture]
and by this Reformation covenant) will be addressed in my public
testimony against you -- along with many of the other questions that you
have raised throughout these discussions (previously and below).
I do not know if you understand this yet, but on this count you are in the
same boat as Frame, aimlessly drifting down the stream of defection and
deformation. You openly deny the covenanted uniformity aimed at in the
Solemn League and Covenant regarding worship and you practice and
preach (contrary to the Solemn League and Covenant and the second
commandment) idolatry in your public worship. That you are a covenant
breaker in this regard is simply historical fact (and can be easily verified
by reading the source documents of that period, not the least of which is
the _Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the Year
1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_). The biblical basis for each of my
assertions can easily be demonstrated (and already has been demonstrated
in numerous books that I have republished) for those who have ears to
hear.
Your review of Frame's book, alone, provides plenty of covenant-denying,
anti-Reformation evidence to attest to what I am saying here against you.
In that review you explicitly deny one of the four major points of
covenanted uniformity (i.e. the point to do with the specific doctrine and
practises concerning the purity of public worship). There is no way around
this: historically you would have been seen as one of the malignants, not as
a classical Protestant -- and certainly not as one upholding the blood-
bought heritage of the Covenanters.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>The thing that grieves me most about what
>you all are doing is this: you appear to be working hard to find every
>caricature of faithful covenanting ever mentioned by the enemies of
>covenants, and doing your level best to live out that caricature in
flesh
>and blood.
REG BARROW WRITES:
Can you provide some specifics? To which caricatures are you referring?
Please cite books (or articles) and page numbers. Sorry Doug, but given
your track record, your word is no longer good with me: you have shown
great facility in making such unsubstantiated assertions before.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>More on this below, but I have no hesitation in saying that your
>work is rapidly becoming the single biggest obstacle to a renewal of the
>covenants. Of course the enemies of covenantal thinking will always see
what
>they want to see, but you are rapidly alienating every natural ally you
>might have in the work of reformation.
REG BARROW WRITES:
Come on Doug, how do you know all this? Telepathy? We are experiencing
a tremendous outpouring of support for every facet of our work (as noted
above) -- along with the increased opposition from the modern day
malignants. If you could only see what is happening I am sure that you
would be staggered by the magnitude of God's blessing that we see and
experience every day! What is happening here is so exciting that I often
find it hard to fall asleep at night. What I have read concerning how the
Holy Spirit was working in Geneva in the time of Calvin, in Scotland during
Knox's day and at the height of second Reformation, is what we see
happening here. That we believe the same things that these great
Reformers did, follow the same confessions, promote the same books, etc.,
is certainly no coincidence. That you (and others like you) oppose these
Reformers at some of the most fundamental points of Reform (especially
concerning worship, church government, the sacraments, covenanting and
church discipline) should also be noted. Those who trust you need to be
made aware that though you mouth some of the language of the
Reformation, you are an enemy to some of the most important biblical
attainments of this period -- at some points leading the simple and
ignorant into anabaptism (one example being your promotion of the
doctrine of pretended liberty of conscience) and at others leading them
right into the arms of the Roman harlot (your Jesuit eschatology [i.e.
Preterism] being a case in point here). You may continue to judge who you
think is "every natural ally" (though the flesh is often mistaken
regarding
such matters); we will praise God for all those who continue to prove
themselves to be our true (and super-natural) allies -- and for those who
have and are about to join with us in the Lord's call for a third
Reformation!
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>I agree with Rutherford's distinction between a valid calling and a
lawful
>calling. Caiaphas was a valid High Priest, but he did not come to the
office
>lawfully. But you say, referring to Brown, that the ministry of the
scribes
>and Pharisees was not to be endorsed. This places you at some variance
to
>someone else who failed to live up to the standards of the first and
second
>Reformation when he said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in
Moses'
seat.
>Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do
not
>do according to their works; for they say, and do not do" (Matt.
23:2b-3).
REG BARROW WRITES:
Doug, do you think that you are the first one to have asked Protesting
Covenanters these questions? You sometimes sound as if you do. If so
please see 1 Cor. 10:12. This objection has been cleared in a number of
Reformation books, of which I will cite only two. Interestingly, Brown went
on to answer the very objection you have raised against us, in the section
of his book (_Apologetical Relation_) just below the quote Greg Price sent,
to which you here refer (above). Perhaps you haven't read Brown for
yourself. He states, in answer to your question regarding Moses' seat:
START QUOTE
"It will be objected, 1. That Christ commandeth to hear the scribes and
the
Pharisees who did sit in Moses' chair, Matt. xxiii. And those of whom now
the question is are not worse than the scribes and Pharisees were; and
therefore it cannot be lawful to refuse obedience unto this act. Ans. For
solution of this objection, which seemeth to be the main one, these things
would be considered: 1. That those scribes and Pharisees were as naughty
men as then lived upon the face of the earth, and were still enemies unto
Christ, and were false teachers; their doctrine was leavened with sour and
dangerous tenets, among which this was a chief, That Christ was not the
Messias; and upon this account Christ desireth his disciples to 'beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees,' Matt. xvi. 6. 2. They were men that had no
lawful call unto that place which they did assume to themselves, which
appeareth from these particulars: (1.) Christ calleth them thieves, and
robbers, and strangers, John x. 1, 5, 8, and that not merely because of
their
false doctrine, nor yet merely because of their carnal way of entry, as
hirelings seeking gain, but also because of their usurping the place and
office, and entering thereinto without a call from God; for the ground and
reason why Christ calleth and proveth them to be thieves and robbers is,
because they entered not by the door, but climbed up some other way, and
the porter did not open unto them (ver. 3), and they came before him; that
is, without his warrant and commission: they took not the right way of
entry, they came not in at the right door, and with God's approbation. (2.)
Matt. xv. 13, Christ calleth them plants which his 'heavenly Father hath not
planted,' and there he is speaking of themselves (and not of their doctrine
only), who were offended at Christ's doctrine, and it was them (and not
their doctrine alone) that Christ would have his disciples to let alone:
'Let
them alone (says he), for they be blind leaders of the blind;' and this will
suit the scope very well; for his disciples had laid some weight on this,
that
they were men in office, and therefore the stumbling and offending of
them seemed to be some great business. But Christ replieth, that albeit
they had been planted, or had planted themselves, in that office and
charge, yet they were such plants as his heavenly Father had never
planted, and therefore they were the less to be regarded. Gualther on the
place saith, 'That it is clear, out of history, that God did never institute
the
order of the scribes which then was, far less the Pharisees and Sadducees;
but they had their rise from that Greek or heathenish school, which Jason,
whom Seleucus made high priest, did institute in Jerusalem, contrary to
the law; and that the Pharisees did spring from the Stoics, and the
Sadducees from the Epicures?' and citeth in the margin, 1 Mach. 1, and 2
Mach. 4. So, ibid., he giveth the sense of that word, 'let them alone,'
*discedite abiis*,-go away from them. (3.) The place which they had
assumed did properly and of right belong unto the priests and Levites, as
Pareus hinteth on the place; yet these, because of their learning and pride,
thinking themselves only worthy to be in office, took upon them that place,
without any further call; which is the more likely, considering, (4.) That
those times were times of confusion and disorder, so that (as Grotius
observeth) there was no care had about this business, but every man who
pleased was free to take upon him to instruct and teach the people; and
this is confirmed by that passage, Acts xiii. 15, 'And after the reading of
the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them,
saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the
people, say on.' Consider, 3. That though the words (ver. 2), be rendered,
'They sit in Moses' seat,' they may be as well rendered, They have set
themselves down in Moses' seat. Pareus, on the place, doth fully clear this,
where he saith, 'In my judgment *ekathisan* is better rendered with the
ancient Latin edition, *sederunt*, -- they did sit, than as now commonly,
*sedent*, -- they do sit; for that phrase of sitting in Moses' seat
signifieth
the office of teaching publicly the doctrine and law of Moses. The verb in
the aorist taketh not from them, but giveth unto them the present
ordinary office of teaching; but, withal, it importeth that this sect had,
by
hook and crook, usurped this office and place which, at the first, was given
by God unto the priests and Levites. They have sitten; that is, they have
set themselves down in that seat of Moses which they now possess; for the
verb *kathizo* doth signify not only neutrally to sit, but also actively to
cause to sit, to place in a seat. Thus he. And Scapula indeed rendereth the
verb actively, 'to cause or command to sit,' and citeth authors for it: so
doth
Pasor say, that properly it signifieth to 'place in a seat,' or 'to cause
one sit.'
4. There is no word of a command here given to his disciples (to whom,
with the multitude, he is speaking) to attend the ministry of the scribes
and Pharisees; for if he had commanded them to do so, it is like the
disciples would have done so in obedience to Christ's command; but the
scripture speaketh nothing of this. And then they should have left Christ
and followed the Pharisees, which is not very probable; and Christ himself
would have taught them to do so by his own example, for he came to fulfil
all righteousness; but there is no word of this either. 5. By the contrary,
Christ is so far from commanding his disciples and others to follow their
ministry, that he dissuadeth them therefrom, not only, elsewhere, calling
them 'blind leaders of the blind,' and such as should be let alone, and fled
from as imposters, (Matt. xv. 13, 14), and saying, (John x. 4, 5), that the
sheep know the voice of a lawful shepherd, but not the voice of a stranger;
yea, they will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him: and this is
meant of the Pharisees, as any may see who will look back to the end of
the 9th chapter; but also in this same chapter throughout, showing at great
length how naughty and perverse men they were, denouncing many a
heavy woe and curse upon them and at length he calleth them a
'generation of vipers,' and serpents who could not escape the damnation of
hell, (ver. 33); all which is but small encouragement to his disciples and
hearers to follow them, or attend their ministry. And it is observable how
fitly many of the particulars for which here Christ denounceth a woe unto
these Pharisees do agree unto the persons concerning the hearing of whom
the question is: As, (1.) 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.' (2.) They
are
at great pains to bring poor simple people over to their opinion, and make
them proselytes, and, when they are made such, they make them the
children of hell with themselves. (3.) As the scribes and Pharisees taught
people shifts to evade the bonds of oaths, telling them that it was nothing
to swear by the altar, or by the temple, so do these excel in that art of
teaching perjury, and loosing the knots of covenants and oaths, as is too
well known. (4.) They are much taken up with punctilios of formalities,
and in causing people to attend all their nods and desires; but as for the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, they cast these
behind their back. (5.) They declare themselves the children of them who
killed the prophets, and are fast filling up the measure of their fathers.
But, indeed, (6.) They are behind the Pharisees in cleansing the outside of
the cup and platter, and in appearing like whited tombs; for they have no
show of piety, and therefore are so much the more to be shunned, and may
certainly, unless they repent, expect all the woes that here are denounced
upon the scribes and Pharisees. 6. It would be considered, for further
confirmation of the last particular, that the main thing which Christ is
pressing upon his hearers here is, that they would beware to follow the
practices of these Pharisees, for all that high place which they took upon
themselves in the church; and, on the by, as it were, he speaketh anent
[concerning -- RB] their receiving of their true doctrine, by way of
concession, or of their doing and observing whatsoever they delivered, as
sitting in Moses' seat, whereof they were presently in possession, by their
usurpation, and while there were no other ordinarily occupying that seat
at that time. So that, these things being considered, it will appear that
this
place maketh no way for the attending the ministry of such men, there
being no command here to hear the Pharisees at all, let be to hear them
always and constantly" (_An Apologetical Relation_, [1660, 1845]
reprinted
1995 as a rare bound photocopy by Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 148-
150).
END QUOTE
A little additional testimony should suffice, as a word to the wise:
"'All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do'
(Mat. xxiii. 3). 'Our Lord's words bear no command to the people to hear
them at all, but only not to reject sound doctrine because it came from
them: surely he would not bid them hear such as he calls plants that his
Father had never planted; whom he bids let alone, and who were thieves
and robbers, whom his sheep should not hear' (Shields, _Hind Let Loose_,
p. 292). Since these Pharisees rejected the gospel scheme, and taught for
doctrines the commandments of men, and the observance of circumcision;
yea, to keep the law of Moses; and the apostles were injoined to teach the
observance of all things that were commanded them, it is not reasonable to
suppose that they would be required to attend the place of instruction so
entirely opposite: nevertheless the words, without affecting the case in
hand, require that those who did there regularly attend, should carefully
observe and practise whatever good was there taught; as much good may
attend very unwarrantable administrations. These very persons,
notwithstanding, were under strict command to come out from among
them, and be separate: and not to hear the instruction which causeth to
err" (see note AA, cited below) (James Douglas, _Strictures on
Occasional
Hearing_, [1820] reprinted 1996 as a rare bound photocopy by Still Waters
Revival Books, pp. 83-84).
Note AA, from _Strictures on Occasional Hearing_ (p. 84), referred to by
Douglas reads,
"Say some on the words: "The Pharisees and Sadducees were declared
enemies to our Lord, and some of them did commit the unpardonable sin;
and as our Lord always bore a pointed testimony against them, we cannot
understand the place of scripture, referred to in the objection, as in
point.
There was no place for the public worship of God but at Jerusalem, and
therefore there could not be any separation from the church without
giving up with the true God. We are not singular in understanding an
attendance on the ministrations of the Scribes and Pharisees to be meant
of civil subjection to the laws of Moses, and their sitting in Moses' seat
means that they were as the executive of the laws of Moses, &c."-
_Act of
the Asso. Pres. of Pennsyl. &c._, p. 16
"Saith one on the words, 'A mere inadvertancy in the translation, that
misled many commentators, in opening up this passage, having taken that
for a command which is truly a reproof, while they translate the words
imperatively, which are as clearly in the indicative mode, and the whole
connexion of words and phrases requireth it to be so understood. Thus the
sense is plain; viz. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, (here is
the
snare and temptation, and hence ye are simply and sinfully imposed upon)
so that, whatsoever they bid you observe, that (so great is your stupidity)
ye observe and do, (right or wrong) but do not ye according to their works,
for they say and do not: Though they imposed upon you, whose simplicity
rendereth you an easy prey to them, yet they are not such fools, as at the
expence of their own ease to put their necks under the grievous yokes
which they wreathe for others, as verse 4.'" James' _Letter to Holmes_,
p.
18.
I think that it is now clear that the Lord had something quite different in
mind, when He spoke of Moses' seat, than what our modern, false
ecumenists would take from His words.
The principles involved in this question are summarized by Marshal,
"Mr. Walter Marshal _Gospel Mystery of Sanctification_ printed 1692
from
Page 310 to 314. says -- Follow no Church any further, than you may
follow it in the way of Christ, and keep Fellowship with it, only upon the
Account of Christ, because it follows Christ (surely such as betray and bury
the Cause and Truth of Christ, cannot be said to follow and keep the Way of
Christ) and has Fellowship with Christ, I John 1:3, Zech 8:23. If a Church
revolt from Christ, (as this present Church has done, in deserting the
covenanted Reformation) we must not follow it, how ancient so ever it be,
as the Israelitish Church was not to be followed, when it persecuted Christ
and his Apostles (which so far confirms what is above said upon their
Point) and many by adhering to that Church fell from Christ, Phil 3:6, Acts
6:13,14. and 21:28. We are indeed to hear the Church, but not every one
that calls itself so, nor none any further than it speaks as a true Church,
according to the Voice of the Shepherd, John 10:27. We must subject
ourselves to Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of his Mysteries. I Cor 4:1.
But must give up ourselves to Christ first absolutely, and to the Church
according to the Will of Christ, 2 Cor 8:5. Our Fear (which is very much in
Fashion with this Church) must not be taught by the Precepts of Men,
Matth 15:9. The Doctrines of any Men are to be tried by Scripture,
whatever Authority they pretend to, Acts 17:11. An unlimited Following
Church-Guides, brought the Church into Babylon, and into all Manner of
spiritual Whoredoms and Abominations; you are not baptised into the
Name of the Church, but into the Name of Christ, I Cor 1:13---Keep
Communion with a Church for the Sake of Communion with Christ, I John
1:3, Zech 8:23. Therefore you must keep Communion in Christ's pure Ways
only, and in them seek Christ by Faith, &c. --- Chuse therefore
Fellowship
with the most spiritual Churches, Judge of Churches and Men, according to
the Rule of the New Creature, 2 Cor. 5:16,17. and try them, Rev. 2:2 and
3:9. otherwise a Church may corrupt you --- I only add --- that Church-
Fellowship, without practicing the Ways of Christ (which this Church
cannot be said to do, even many of themselves, and Assembly-Acts being
Judges) is but a Conspiracy to take his Name in vain, and a counterfeit
Church-fellowship of Hypocrites: It is Impudence to invite others to their
Communion, and Tyranny to compel them. Every Christian is bound to seek
a better Church-fellowship by Reformation; and those that do so, are the
best Sons of Christ's Church, who inquire, is this the Way to enjoy Christ?
A
Church-way being appointed to enjoy Christ therein; especially leave not
the Church in Persecution (as the Indulged and Tolerated, &c. did in the
late Times) when you need its Help most, and are then most tried whether
you will cleave to it, this is a Sign of Apostasy, Heb. 10:25,26. Matth.
24:9,10, ---13. We should cleave to one another as one Flesh, even to
Prisons and Death, or else we deny Christ and his Members, Matth.
25:43."
(from _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting_, [1731] SWRB reprint
1996, pp. 212-213).
Furthermore, the following testimony (which refutes your wresting of the
Scriptures above), written by the session of the church I attend (in their
_Brief Defense of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances_ [1996], FREE
on the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BriefDef.htm
), is
apropos:
START QUOTE
"2. We do testify with our covenanted and presbyterian forefathers that
all
churches and assemblies which do not subscribe the moral substance of
the covenants have departed from the biblical light attained to by the
Second Reformation and are constitutionally false (especially is this true
of
churches that profess to be presbyterian and which know of the covenants,
but yet have refused to own them in their constitutions).
4. We do testify with our covenanted and presbyterian forefathers that it
is not schismatic to dissociate from a constitutionally false church in
order
to be faithful to a constitutionally true church. It is rather schismatic,
sectarian, and unpresbyterian to refuse to subscribe the covenants of the
Second Reformation. With Mr. Rutherford we do take our stand:
'When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from the Truth, the
lesser part remaining sound, *the greatest part is the Church of
Separatists* (Samuel Rutherford, _Due Right Of Presbyteries_, p. 255,
emphases added).'
"7. We do testify with our covenanted and presbyterian forefathers that
it
is our duty to honor the church of Jesus Christ as our mother who bore us
(Ex. 20:12; Gal. 4:26). However, Jesus asked, "Who is my mother? For
whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is . . . my mother" (Mk.
3:33,35). The church of Jesus Christ as represented by the Church of
Scotland and all churches adhering unto her covenanted and presbyterian
principles since then are our mother. To presently own the ________
Church as a true constitutional expression of our mother is to disown in the
same breath The Church of Scotland at the time of the Second Reformation
as a true constitutional expression of our mother. When the constitutions of
two churches disagree (one church requiring as a term of communion the
sincere owning of the covenants while the other church refusing as a term
of communion the sincere owning of the covenants), both cannot be true
expressions of our mother. Thus, we are conscientiously compelled to own
The Church of Scotland at the time of the Second Reformation as a true
expression of our mother, and to disown The ________ Church as being
such."
END QUOTE
In sum: Christ commands us to *flee* from unlawful teachers, who are
working for the destruction of his church (in perpetuating backsliding from
reformation attainments), not to *countenance* them, as you foolishly
assert here and elsewhere (e.g. your response to Kevin Reed regarding
separation, which stated something to this effect: "When modern
evangelicalism holds her Trent, then we will separate. We are reformed
evangelicals."). That such *fleeing* is a divine command is evident
from
Prov. 19:27; 2 Cor. 6:17; John 10:5, etc. Indeed, this principle is taught
by
the light of nature itself, for if we are to preserve our lives from danger,
how much more our souls?
Additionally, for those who try to soothe their conscience by claiming that
they protest against given errors, but remain joined unto the apostate
bodies, we enter the following rebuke,
"Some say, People may thereby have their Consciences exonered
(exonerated -- RB), &c.. Well, be it so, I ask, What better was Pilate's
Conscience, that he gave in a Protestation against the Crucifixion of our
Lord (which is indeed recorded by the Holy Ghost, not to the Honour of the
Protester) seeing he concurred in the Action, and thereby consented to the
Deed done? And so in the present Case, What better would Peoples
Consciences be, to give in a Protestation against this Church, for
crucifying
the precious Truths of Christ, and yet Pilate-like join with her? Or, what
better would they be to protest against Arianism, Socinianism,
Arminianism, Erastianism, and Legalism, &c. and yet join with a Church
sadly leavened with such Errors (a few excepted) and which harbours and
tolerates the Promoters thereof, and will not put away the accursed Thing
from among them? The plain Sense of this Kind of Protesting and Joining,
seems to be in short this, as if one should say to another, I see by the
Word, you are pursuing a Course really evil, and truly dishonourable to
Christ, inconsistent with his holy Word and Ordinances of House, and
offensive to his People; and therefore, I protest against that Practice and
Way of yours, for the Exoneration of my Conscience, &c. nevertheless, I
will
still attend and countenance you in that sinful Course, altho' ye should not
receive and record my Protestation. Is this a sufficient Salvo to a Man's
Conscience; or, will it free him when he comes before the Bar of God?"
(Andrew Clarkson, _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting_, [1731]
SWRB reprint 1996, pp. 195-196).
But, as these questions just adumbrate the resolution of the controversy
concerning your public sin against me in _Credenda/Agenda_, I will leave
off any further answer at this time. These questions (which are all very
important) do not comprise the *first* issue (in regard to my charges of
slander against you) that needs to be resolved between us -- as I have
pointed out above. For now, let us try to resolve the issue of whether or
not you lied about me in your magazine.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>We do not differ with you about what many modern clowns are doing up
there
>on "Moses' seat." But we reject utterly your anabaptistic and
>perfectionistic way of responding to them. When God removes the clowns
from
>their teaching office, He does in the massive upheavals like the
destruction
>of Jerusalem, or the continent-wide, century-long turmoil of the
>Reformation, culminating in the apostasy of Trent. It does *not* happen
when
>one tiny splinter group separates from another tiny splinter group. This
is
>not Reformation; it is the separatism of fundamentalist baptists.
REG BARROW WRITES:
"The separation of the fundamental baptists"? Doug, are you trying
to lose
all credibility? Your carefree name-calling is annoying, inaccurate, and
consistent with the slander you allowed to be printed about me in
_Credenda/Agenda_. "Reformation in the church has ever been effected by
the protestation and separation of a virtuous minority" (_Act,
Declaration
and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_, p. 165). Tell
me, Was the Apostolic church in ecclesiastical fellowship (and sharing the
same courts, ordinances, discipline and worship) with the apostate church
of the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem? Have you ever noticed
what Paul did relative to this question? "But when divers were
hardened,
and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he
departed from them, and *separated the disciples*..." (Acts 19:9).
Calvin, on
Paul "separating the disciples," writes, "Therefore, Paul did
separate the
disciples, lest the goats should with their stink infect the flock of sheep;
secondly, that the pure worshippers of God might make profession
freely."
This is exactly what we, the Protesting Covenanted remnant of
"fundamental baptists," (as you call us -- you are going to get
the Baptists
really mad with that one) contend for -- just like Paul (and Calvin).
Furthermore, we do not deny that sometimes "massive upheavals" do
occur
for the good; we merely contend that Scripture gives ample warrant for
faithful sheep to remove themselves from the corporate stink of the
modern goat denominations, when apostasy has compromised the visible
church at a constitutional level.
Additionally, your deference to majorities, as opposed to truth, puts you at
odds with a certain exemplary classical Protestant:
"It is an offense to a great many people that they see almost the whole
world opposed to us. And indeed the patrons of a bad cause do not neglect
their own advantage, using a stratagem like this so as not to upset the
ignorant and weak, that it is extremely absurd that almost the whole
Christian world is disregarded, so that the faith is to be possessed by a
few
men. But, in particular, to destroy us they defend themselves with the
sacred title of "the Church" as if with a mallet. But I wish to
know how
those who are alienated from the Gospel by the smallness of our numbers
are to preserve their faith against the Turks.
As far as we are concerned, if one man, Noah, condemned all the men of
his generation by his faith, there is no reason why a great crowd of
unbelievers should move us from our position. At the same time, I say that
it is not only hardly a probable, but indeed an unjust and disgraceful,
cause of a scandal when regard for men outweighs the Word of God. . . . If
anyone perhaps objects that we are not excused by the example of Noah, if
we separate ourselves from that crowd which keeps the name of "the
Church," Isaiah, when he gave orders to abandon the conspiracy of men
and follow God alone, was referring not to strangers but to those who were
at that time glorying exceedingly in the name of the people of God (Isa.
8:12). And when Peter compares the Church to the ark, because in a
perishing world a small company of men is saved as if through a flood, he
is giving warning enough that we must not be dependent on the multitude
(I Pet. 3:20ff.). Why then does it please wretched men to grasp at the
chance of staggering and tottering in the changeable breezes of the world
when God makes us firm on the eternal foundation of his Word? Why do
they prefer to be tossed about in the midst of the storms of opinions rather
than lie quietly in the safe harbor of certain truth, where God invites
us?"
(John Calvin as translated by John W. Fraser, _Concerning Scandals_,
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, [1550] 1978, pp. 109-110).
Also, didn't the Reformers pull out of Rome long before Trent? I am not
sure why you would bring this up or how such a point helps your case.
Surely you don't think that individual Christians are absolved of
responsibility to remove themselves from and testify against apostasy
until "God removes the clowns from their teaching office"? If your
ecumenical rhetoric has dulled your senses to the point of such stupidity,
then you should know that you are taking a page out of the antinomian
handbook, as well as denying the following, clear biblical testimony:
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received of us" (2 Thes. 3:6).
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them"
(Rom. 16:17).
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the
Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2Cor. 6:17).
Furthermore, do you have no regard (or a low regard), for the growth in
sanctification of the church and the greater responsibility that this growth
brings upon those who live in its greater light? Do you really think that
the
church that will cover the earth during the millennial glory will be as
confused, divided and impotent as the contemporary "churches" that
profess Christ? With this in mind it is easy to see how our case differs (in
many ways) from that of the early church -- and that of the church of the
Reformation also (cf. Fraser's _The Lawfulness and Duty of Separation
From Corrupt Ministers and Churches Vindicated and Explained_, [1744]
SWRB reprint 1996, Chap. 4, sect. 5) . You will put up with many things in
your children when they are 2 or 3 years old which you would never
tolerate when they are 10 or 15 years old. Taking into account those
responsibilities that come with biblical attainments is imperative if one is
to speak with any clearness on the subject of the Lord's covenanted Zion.
John Brown of Wamphray (Samuel Rutherford's student, previously cited)
makes this clear when he writes,
"(F)or there is a vast difference to be put betwixt a time wherein the
church is advancing in a course of reformation, and a time wherein she is
declining and sliding back from that degree of reformation unto which she
had already attained. In a time wherein the church is but coming out of
darkness, and the day is but beginning to break up, many things may then
be comported with and tolerated which may not be submitted unto after
the church hath got all these abuses reformed. Every believer and every
church is bound to stand fast in that which they have attained unto, and
not to cede in a hoof: so that Christians living in a time wherein the church
is but beginning to wrestle up from under the heap of error and
corruption, may be allowed to do many things which must not be done
when the noontide of the day is come. In the time of the reformation
begun by Luther and others, many things might have been comported
within the church (reformation being a gradual motion that hath but small
beginnings and risings) which now, since the reformation hath been
carried on, through the blessing of God, to that degree it was advanced to,
cannot be allowed. When God hath wonderfully, by his mighty power and
outstretched arm, brought a church to a great length in reformation, it will
be the duty of that church, and of the members thereof, to adhere to that
degree unto which they have attained with all perseverance. It will be
lawful for the church which is but coming up the hill to stand at such a
step until they gain another, when yet it will not be lawful for the same
church to go backward after they have advanced. The truth once bought
should never be sold. So then the consequence is null. Their forefathers
stumbled not nor did scruple at the doing of such or such things; therefore
those in this generation who have advanced, through the blessing of God,
unto a farther degree of reformation, should not scruple either. It is a
poor
consequence to say, The posterity may return backwards because their
forefathers could not advance further. Much more may be seen when the
sun is up than in the twilight: therefore the scrupling of honest people now
doth no way condemn their forefathers; but, on the contrary, the
steadfastness of their forefathers, in standing to the degree to which they
had reached, and their endeavouring to advance, will condemn this
generation for backsliding. In their days those abuses and corruption were
not remedied,-- the church was not then freed of that yoke of oppression,-
- and, further, their after consent unto such ministers made up this defect;
but those in this generation are not at liberty to give or grant their after
consent, because they are engaged to stand to the work of reformation, and
to own it in all its parts" (_An Apologetical Relation_ [1665, 1845],
SWRB
reprint 1995, pp. 145-146).
Again, your lack of knowledge regarding Scripture, history, and
Reformation doctrine (such as the doctrine of attainments) is surprising.
You may find it helpful, in seeking to master some of the fine points of
these classic Reformation distinctives, to pursue the appendix in David
Steele's _Notes on the Apocalypse_ (1870, forthcoming). In the section
"Pastor Steele's Printed Communications With the Editor of _The
Covenanter_" (pp. 395-423) Steele and James Willson debate these very
issues in great detail.
But the present question between us continues: Did you lie about me in
what you printed in your magazine?
We will gladly continue to address your other questions and comments at
the appropriate time, but let us first deal with the question at hand.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>You remind me that satire directed at Frame (without going to him first)
>would have fine, but that it was not fine directed against you. You
point
>out (rightly) that what Christ could do to the Pharisees the Pharisees
could
>not lawfully do to Christ. In other words, whether or not the ninth
>commandment has been broken *depends upon who is right and who is
wrong in
>the dispute.* So could we talk about *that* before the rush to judgment?
I
>would love to discuss with you whether or not there was an offence
before we
>separate over the purported need to remove it. The fact that someone is
>offended is not biblical grounds for assuming that offence, biblically
>defined, was given.
REG BARROW WRITES:
And that is what I have been saying throughout this letter. Stick to the
issue of whether what you publicly printed was true or not. Do you still
maintain that I had not read Frame's book, as you printed? I am not asking
you whether you maintain that I had read *enough* of Frame's book,
because that is not what you printed. Whether I had read enough of
Frame's book (in your opinion) is another question completely and has
nothing to do with the lies that you printed about me. You said of me
"He
hasn't read John Frame's new book...", you did not say "he has not
read
*enough* of Frame's book... to make such a charge." Why is this so hard
for
you to see? Is your heart so hard? You lied (or at least allowed the lie to
be
published); why do you refuse to repent? Is it so hard for you to
"(d)emonstrate true integrity by confessing a lack of discretion in
promoting" the Telepathy slander "and by repudiating the"
Telepathy
slander "publicly"? (adapted from Hagopian and Wilson, _Beyond
Promises:
A Biblical Challenge to Promise Keepers_, Canon Press, 1996, p. 263).
I call you to stand to what you have written, in _Beyond Promises_ (p.
266), regarding my case, when you said, "If anything we have written
here
is shown to be in error, we will not pretend that it did not happen. We will
publicly retract the error and apologize for having made it."
If you do not repent of and publicly retract the Telepathy slander, but
harden yourself in your position, "and continue to defend the
indefensible,
then we, along with all Christians concerned for the authority of Scripture
and the gospel of Christ would have no choice but to move from being
concerned, to opposing" you and your work "outright" (adapted
from
Hagopian and Wilson, _Beyond Promises: A Biblical Challenge to Promise
Keepers_, Canon Press 1996, p. 267).
Furthermore, will you tell me the name of the individual who wrote the
Telepathy section in the "Cave of Adullam" which started all this
controversy?
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>You say, "We are not for an immediate revolution of thought and
change
in
>the church. However, we must not tolerate the false teaching that is
>promoted in churches, seminaries etc. by those professing to be
ministers
of
>the gospel." Put this another way. "We are not for an
immediate
revolution
>of thought and change in the church, as long as it happens right away.
If it
>does not, we're leaving!"
REG BARROW WRITES:
Doug, who are you joined to ecclesiastically? Whose courts do you
recognize? Do you recognize our courts? What are your terms of
communion? What confession and covenants are you constituted under in
ecclesiastical union with these other groups? It seems to me that you are
just as revolutionary as anybody -- practically speaking. Do you think that
your ecumenical rhetoric absolves you of your practical separatism? At
least our walk matches our talk. Maybe I should call you the Anabaptist
for not joining with the many other so-called "Reformation"
denominations
which are available, and which you seem to believe are so constituted as to
have in them lawful courts of Christ. Why have you not submitted yourself
to these courts and their ministers if they are indeed lawful? Why have
you not joined with any of these denominations? The way you talk I would
think that this would be a duty which you would not have ignored for so
long (Matt. 7:5).
As you note above, the question of truth is paramount -- we are forbidden
by Scripture to remain in ecclesiastical fellowship with those who publicly
deny the corporate testimony of the church as it has been attained at any
given point in history (Eccl. 3:15). As the Reformers said, "to avoid
schism
we must separate." We remain ecclesiastically separated from you (and
consider you to be a schismatic group, i.e. you are alienated, as are many
others, from the lawfully constituted visible church as she has shown
herself to remain faithful to Christ historically), and others who deny the
Reformation (at various points), for many reasons. Two of these reasons,
comprehending very important biblical issues (i.e. worship and
government), are noted by Shields in his _Hind Let Loose_ when he writes,
"Those who innovate the worship and government, owned and established
in a true church (i.e. the Church of Scotland at the height of the second
reformation--RB), are schismatics... (p. 310). I should have the
"Schism"
section from Clarkson's' _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting From
the Revolution-Church..._ up on our web page soon (at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Schism.htm
). I
would strongly suggest that your read this before commenting much
further on any of these issues regarding separation and schism. What you
have said to us so far is a complete denial of the Reformation doctrine on
this point and the section on "schism" in _Plain Reasons_ cites
many quotes
(from major Reformers) which confirm this. After reading this splendid
work you might want to deny the classical Protestant position on schism
(as you do with worship), but I hope, rather, that you will be humbled by
the clarity of God's Word on this point, as we were, and that you will
repent and embrace the truth.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>In common with the anabaptistic view of the
>church, you think that crossing the street removes you from all the
>covenantal error and sin at the place you just left. *It does not.* You
>believe a change in latitude and longitude removes covenantal
connections.
>But on the fundamental level, you are as covenantally connected to the
PCA
>as anyone can be. So are we, ecclesiastical boundaries notwithstanding.
REG BARROW WRITES:
This is nonsense. I am testifying against the PCA as the malignant remnant
of the spawn of the spawn of the Revolution settlement (1689) defection
(constitutionally and theologically) and as a limb of ecclesiastical
Antichrist
(again, considered constitutionally; cf. Calvin's _Institutes_, 4.2.12).
They
never have been any part (constitutionally) of the visible church and they
have from their very inception denied the Reformed view of the visible
church concerning doctrine, worship, government and discipline. They
have officially opposed many Reformation attainments (usually in
ignorance, I hope), tolerated many forms of public idolatry and the
promoters thereof (e.g. John Frame), and have never given any indication
that they have any idea of the covenant obligations that all true
Presbyterians come under (much less attempting to fulfill those
obligations).
As proof of some of my most recent testimony against this apostate false
church (i.e. as to constitution), I cite the following item, which I
composed
during a discussion I was having on a PCA email discussion group:
START QUOTE
The PCA is apostate (constitutionally) and has no ministerial authority (or
courts) which Christ recognizes, as is proved in:
_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.
FREE at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PCAbad.htm
_A Testimony Against the Prominent Errors of Our Times_ Adullam
Presbyterian Church (Kevin Reed and others produced this testimony in
June [1990]. It is directed at many specific areas of corruption found in
the
PCA.)
FREE at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/TestProm.htm
_Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church of
Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil Government, and the
Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution Principles_ (1731) by
Andrew Clarkson (An exceedingly rare and important book now back in
print after 265 years! The _Contending Witness_ magazine [May, 1841]
described _Plain Reasons_ "as the single best volume penned defending
the
principles of the second Reformation." It sets forth "the grounds
why
Presbyterian Dissenters refused to hold communion with the revolution
church and state," [Reformed Presbytery, _Act Declaration and Testimony
for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_, p. 154n]. The biblical
principles contained in this book still apply today and thus _Plain Reasons_
remains one of the best books explaining why [and when] an individual
[church or citizen] should separate himself [or itself, as a corporate moral
person] from those [in church or state] who do not hold fast to all the
attainments of our *covenanted Reformation forefathers*. In this regard
the session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton calls this the one
book that best explains why faithful Covenanted Presbyterians must, for
conscience sake, remain ecclesiastically separate from all Presbyterian
denominations that have backslidden from second Reformation
attainments. (This being the classic corporate Calvinistic application of
such
commands as "Nevertheless, whereto we have already *attained*, let us
walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" [Phil. 3:16,
emphasis
added]. It is also the acknowledgement that the Lord has clearly stated in
his Word that he "requireth that which is past" [Eccl. 3:15].)
Furthermore,
the session of the PRC of Edmonton has noted that this book "clearly
spells
out the reasons why to unite with the Revolution Church (1689) or any of
its descendants [The Free Church of Scotland, The Free Presbyterian Church
of Scotland, and American Presbyterian Churches. etc] is to undermine and
subvert the work of the Second Reformation. The argumentation is cogent
[with an abundant supply of documentation]. *The section [in the book] on
schism is a "classic of classics" and clearly demonstrates how
very few in
our day [even in the Reformed camp] understand the Reformation doctrine
regarding schism, separation and the visible church.* In this file you will
find the complete table of contents, the preface and the first reason for
dissent. Lord willing, other sections will follow in time. The table of
contents is very valuable as it lays out in summary [and with a fair
amount of detail] the whole scope of the book. It can serve as a kind of
summary of second Reformation thought concerning the church, state,
separation, schism, worship, civil dissent, church planting, opposition to
idolatry and tyranny, and much more!)
FREE at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PlainTOC.htm
END QUOTE
(The first and third books cited above are also available from Still Waters
Revival Books in hard copy format, and the second title is available from
Presbyterian Heritage Publications [at: P.O. Box 180922, Dallas, TX, USA,
75218] for those that do not have a connection to the world wide web.)
The Reformed Presbytery has also (long ago) furnished us with a
testimony which applies to the PCA and those who do not testify against
this harlot daughter's many corruptions (including "liturgical
dance,"
drama, crosses, man-made hymns, instrumental music, etc. in public
worship; "ministers" who deny the Sabbath, deny six day
creationism, and
approve of women preachers, etc. -- and this list could extend to pages --
all the fruit of open communion, the denial of covenanted standards and
the lack of Scriptural discipline, doctrine and government in this corrupt
and corrupting body),
"(W)e testify against all who, under pretext of superior charity or
liberality, fiercely clamor for union of churches by a sacrifice of divine
truth, and in violation of order; or, who advocate intercommunion among
bodies organically separate; or who furnish testimonials of Christian
character to officers or members, who avow their intention to break
covenant; thus inculcating hypocrisy, by precept and example, and
reducing the awful sin of perjury to system. By such sinful and debasing
practices; by the haughty bearing of idle shepherds of mercenary spirit --
"greedy dogs which can never have enough" -- unauthorized
revivalists --
who "understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm;"
(they--
RB) are thus prepared to become the vassals of anti-christ..." (_Act,
Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_,
[1876 edition] SWRB reprint 1995, p. 175)
But to continue, even the Resolutioners (from whom Samuel Rutherford,
James Guthrie and the other seventeenth century Protesters separated)
were so far superior to the PCA that there is no comparison. In fact, at the
beginning of this controversy, the Protesters and Resolutioners
*constitutionally agreed on every point* except who would be allowed into
the Scottish army, the hasty admittance of Charles II to the Covenants and
the general toleration of malignants and backsliding. Because of these
differences the Protesting Covenanters would not recognize the
Resolutioner body as a duly constituted segment of the visible church
(constitutionally) or serve the members of this diseased body the Lord's
supper. Some prominent Protesters even questioned the salvation of some
of the arch-malignants in their prayers. We, with Rutherford, Guthrie and
the other Protesting witnesses, take the same stance in our day with
regard to the PCA (and other constitutionally corrupted bodies); while
noting that the level of corruption in our day is much more pronounced
and therefore it is much easier for us to determine a faithful course
according to Scripture. Notwithstanding, the history of this period and the
biblical justification for separation used by our classical Presbyterian
forefathers in the faith remains eminently instructive. The following rather
lengthy quote (recounting some of this history) may help you see how
these men dealt with a situation that was far less clear than the rampant
and open apostasy that we see on all fronts today (especially in so-called
"Presbyterian" denominations). The Session of the Puritan reformed
Church
of Edmonton has written (in their _Brief Defense of Dissociation in the
Present Circumstances_ [1996]; this entire article is FREE on the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BriefDef.htm
),
START QUOTE
"Though false allegations of schism, separatism, and independency will
likely attend our decision to dissociate from The ________ Church, the
session of Puritan Reformed Church offers this brief defence in support of
its action.
Though it is not necessary that a truly constituted church be absolutely
pure as to the doctrine taught or embraced, as to the ordinances
administered, or the public worship performed, it is, however, necessary
that its constitution be founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God
and that its constitution reflect the light attained to by the purest of
Reformed Churches (for all reformation must be biblical reformation if it is
reformation at all, otherwise it is not a reformation but a deformation, cf.
Phil. 3:16). Wherefore, to adopt a constitution that corrupts the light of
Scripture or the light of reformation is to adopt a false constitution. A
false
constitution renders a church and its courts unconstitutional. When the
Confession of Faith (25:4) speaks of degrees of purity among particular
churches within the "catholick church", we believe it designates
degrees of
purity within truly constituted churches. For example, though the church
of Corinth was plagued with division, immorality, and false doctrine
promoted by some within the church (and therefore manifested a lesser
degree of purity than other truly constituted churches, cf. the church of
Smyrna in Rev. 2:8-11), it was, nevertheless, a truly constituted church for
it was constituted by apostolic authority (with apostolic doctrine,
apostolic
worship, apostolic government, and apostolic discipline). Thus, for a church
to constitutionally adhere to Arminianism, Dispensationalism, or
Charismatic experientialism (false doctrine), singing uninspired hymns or
using instrumental music in public praise (false worship), Episcopacy or
Independency (false government), or unrestricted communion (false
discipline) is to qualify as a constitutionally false church. That is not to
say
that there are no believers in churches that are not truly constituted
(there
may be many in some cases). Nor is it to imply that ministers or elders
within those churches do not courageously stand for many truths taught in
Scripture. It is simply to say that authority to rule in the church must
come from Christ, and if a church does not have a constitution of which He
approves (as King of His church), then there is no lawful authority to rule
or to administer the ordinances on His behalf. Authority to administer the
divine ordinances on behalf of Christ flows directly from the King and His
constitution. Authority used within His church on any other grounds is an
usurped authority. It is tyranny. For this reason, the magistracy and the
church (during the Second Reformation) did not recognize the
constitutional viability of any other church within the realm of Scotland
than the Church of Scotland:
'. . . there is no other face of kirk, nor other face of religion, than was
presently at that time, by the favour of God, established within this realm:
"Which therefore is *ever styled God's true religion, Christ's true
religion,
the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion' (The National
Covenant of Scotland, emphases added).
To live in Scotland and yet to be outside the Church of Scotland was to be
outside the visible church, for no other church was tolerated or recognized
as a constitutionally true church. It was to be excommunicated from a
truly constituted church and ministry. An essential term of communion
within the Church of Scotland was The National Covenant (and
subsequently The Solemn League and Covenant). Concerning the National
Covenant as a term of communion note the following historical accounts.
'Copies of the Covenant were carried into every corner of the land to be
subscribed, and were looked upon as *tests of faith in Christ*. . . . The
Presbytery of Kirkcaldy resolved, 1st August 1639, that no '*wilful non-
Covenanters should be admitted to the Sacrament*' (James King Hewison,
_The Covenanters, A History of the Church in Scotland from the
Reformation to the Revolution_, Vol. I, p. 272, emphases added).
'At length, on 2nd August 1643, the epoch-making Assembly met in the
east division of St. Giles' Church, Edinburgh, when Sir Thomas Hope had the
unique distinction of sitting as Commissioner, and Henderson, for the third
time, filled the Moderator's chair. They began business by enacting that
the National Covenant of 1638 should be issued in a little quarto volume,
with blank leaves, *to be subscribed in every synod, presbytery, and
parish, and that non-subscribers of it should be censured*' (Hewison, _The
Covenanters_, Vol. I, p. 377, emphases added).
Furthermore, those accounted as having defected from these covenants
(the defectors were called "malignants") were censured by the
Church of
Scotland.
'On 12th July [1648], the Assembly met in Edinburgh, George Gillespie
being Moderator, approved of the Argyll policy, and condemned the
'unlawful engagement' as sinful and censurable. The Church opposed the
Engagement because it violated the Solemn League and Covenant,
inasmuch as it proposed the reinstatement of an Episcopal monarch, the
formation of a party of Covenanters in alliance with their opponents, and
the delegation of power to a government who 'mind not religion.' The
Assembly further declared the Engagers to be malignants, non-
Covenanters, sectaries, and enemies to the one righteous cause. . . . *The
Covenant was to be the sole test of patriotism and of religion*. Other bonds
and the toleration of sects were to be avoided like the pest. *Favourers of
any other policy were to be excommunicated if unrepentant. Ministers
approving of the Engagement were to be deposed...'* (Hewison, _The
Covenanters_, [1908] SWRB reprint 1996, Vol. I, p. 446, emphases added).
In fact, the issue of faithfulness to the covenants actually rent the Church
of Scotland into two parties so that the Protesters declared the Assemblies
of the Resolutioners (the covenant-breaking party that developed out of
the Engagers) to be unconstitutional and pretended Assemblies. The
covenants were obvious terms of communion, for Protesters and
Resolutioners refused to meet in the same General Assemblies together.
Protesters did not recognize the unlawful courts of the Resolutioner
Assemblies and would not attend them when cited to appear. Protesters
were deposed from the ministry by Resolutioner Assemblies when they
refused to recognize their lawful authority to rule on behalf of Christ.
'It [the joint General Assembly of Protesters and Resolutioners--PRC] met
in St. Andrews on 16th July. . . . Rutherford, and other twenty-one
sympathisers, protested against the meeting as *unconstitutional*. . . .
There [later at Dundee, where the General Assembly of Protesters, who had
separated themselves from the Resolutioners, was now meeting--PRC], on
22nd July [1651--PRC], Rutherford's cogent Protest declining the
Assembly* was read. Balcarres [a Resolutioner--PRC] in vain demanded
that the twenty-two absent Protesters should be reported for civil
punishment for their reflections on the King, Parliament, and Church. The
Assembly [of Resolutioners--PRC] ordered Presbyteries to deal with them.
It was ultimately agreed to cite [James--PRC] Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie,
James Simson, James Naismith, and John Menzies. *They did not compear*
[i.e. appear at the Resolutioner assembly--PRC]. The [Resolutioner--PRC]
Assembly deposed Guthrie, Gillespie, and Simson, suspended Naismith, and
referred Menzies to the Commission. After the meeting of the Assembly at
St. Andrews, a work was published entitled _A Vindication of the Freedom
and Lawfulness of the late Assembly_ [by James Wood, a Resolutioner--
PRC], etc. This was answered by _The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at
Saint Andrews and Dundee_" [signed by 40 Protesters including
Rutherford
and Guthrie--PRC] (Hewison, _The Covenanters_, Vol. II, pp. 34,35,
emphases added).
Separate Assemblies of Protesters and Resolutioners met in 1652 and in
1653 in Edinburgh. The Protesters declared the Assembly of the
Resolutioners in 1652 to be "unlawful, unfrie, and unjust"
(Hewison, _The
Covenanters_, Vol. II, p. 43). It is worthy to be noted that the issue
between the Protesters and the Resolutioners did not deal at all with the
propriety of ministers and members of the Church of Scotland swearing
the covenants, but over the issue of faithfulness to the covenants. Both
sides upheld the obligation of ministers and members to own the
covenants. Furthermore, unfaithfulness to this term of communion (i.e.
faithfully maintaining the covenants) on the part of the Resolutioners led
the Protesters to separate from their brethren to avoid schism and in order
to maintain a truly constituted church. They would not serve with the
Resolutioners while they maintained different terms of communion,
neither would they serve them the Lord's Supper (e.g. Rutherford refused
to serve communion with Blair at St. Andrews; and on another occasion
Rutherford and Moncrieff debarred Resolutioners from the table at
Scoonie). Such actions can only be defended if the covenants were terms of
communion. Were the covenants biblical terms of communion? We testify
that they were and still are biblical terms of communion. To affirm
otherwise is in effect to charge the faithful covenanters (Protesters) of
the
Second Reformation with sin and to undermine their covenanted
reformation and the biblical presbyterianism they taught and practiced.
Therefore, we must maintain a faithful testimony in defence of this
covenanted reformation and presbyterianism as it was taught and
practiced by faithful covenanters of the Second Reformation as being
biblical and "which therefore is ever styled God's true religion,
Christ's true
religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion" (The
National Covenant of Scotland, emphases added).
END QUOTE
As shown, then, we are striving to bear faithful testimony against the PCA
and other backsliding (constitutional) daughters of the harlot (Rev. 17:5);
and by this we deny that the PCA is a *duly constituted* segment of the
visible church. This is not to deny the visible church (in those that
believe
and their children) *at* the PCA (as Calvin did with Rome in his
_Institutes_ 4.2.12). In fact, I have no problem affirming a covenantal
connection with those in the PCA at this level (i.e. in as far as we are
covenantally bound to Christ, as individuals). It is only at the
"organic
ministerial" level that I deny that the PCA is a *duly constituted*
segment
of the visible church.
This very teaching is also proclaimed (along with an expression of true
love to the brethren) in one of the covenanted Presbyterian church's
judicial standards. In the Reformed Presbytery's _Auchensaugh Renovation
of the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant..._ (1712, 1880,
SWRB reprint 1994) we read,
"Believing that *the Christian Church is one by her divine
constitution*, and
lamenting existing divisions among the children of God; recognizing the
obligation upon us to love the brotherhood, we will endeavor to cultivate
charity in **private intercourse** towards all who reflect the divine image;
and help to elevate them to the platform of the *Covenanted Reformation*
as our **only recognized bond of organic and ministerial church
fellowship**. Nor will we, in reliance upon the promised and continued
supplies of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, permit ourselves to be divided from
this our *covenanted unity and uniformity* by the promises, threats, or
solicitations of surrounding communities. Through divine grace we will
endeavour, *by practical manifestation of the truth*, to commend
ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, as the most
effectual means of healing Zion's breaches, that are great like the
sea" (p.
139, emphases added).
This may seem hard to understand without the knowledge of the doctrine
of "moral persons." Here is a short explanation from David Scott's
_Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church_ (1841, SWRB
reprint 1996, pp. 61-63) :
"1. Ecclesiastical and national societies are moral persons. By a moral
person I mean that each of these kinds of society has an understanding
and a will of its own, by which it perceives, deliberates, determines and
acts. An individual person, is one that has the power of understanding and
willing; the name moral person is therefore applied to a society, having an
understanding and a will common to the whole body, by which, though
made up of a vast number of individuals, it possesses the power of
knowing, deliberating, determining, and acting. A moral person may enter
into contracts and covenant obligations; and these are as valid when
entered into, as the covenant obligations of individual persons. Being moral
persons, churches and nations are capable of entering into covenant with
God; and that it is their duty to do so, I have demonstrated in the
preceding section. Such obligations, when constituted agreeably to the will
of God, are necessarily perpetual; for it is not the individuals merely of
which the society consists, but the society itself, as a moral person, that
covenants. In the case of personal covenanting, no one will question that
the covenant obligation extends throughout the whole life of the
individual; the same principle prevails in relation to social covenanting:
the
obligation extends throughout the duration of the moral person.
2. The church is a permanently existing body. It has undergone, indeed,
several changes in its external administration, but it is the same now that
it was when first constituted. The church in the wilderness of Sinai is
identical with the church in the days of Adam and Eve, and continues still
the same moral person in the nineteenth century. The removal by death of
individual members, does not destroy the identity of the moral person,
which remains unaffected by the removal of a thousand generations.
Covenant obligation entered into by the church, in any given period,
continues of perpetual obligation throughout all succeeding generations,
and that too, on the recognised principle that the church continues the
same moral person."
You see Doug, without an understanding of this doctrine, all the Scripture
which speaks of the church as one (visibly) and the faithful testimony we
are commanded to proclaim against the false church (as it is visible
constitutionally) will make little or no sense. This is why my earlier
comments regarding the fifth commandment, as applied to the church (and
the state) in regard to our responsibility at a corporate level, were so
important. Notice below how the _Westminster Larger Catechism_
succinctly highlights this very truth.
"Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth
commandment?
Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not
only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and *especially*
such as, by *God's ordinance*, are over us in place of authority, whether in
family, *church, or commonwealth* (emphases added)."
In light of these teachings it is easy to see why we maintain, with the
Reformed Presbytery (citing Thomas Sproull thoughout, below), that it is
not we who are the schismatics, but those who willfully abandon and
disregard their covenant obligations and Reformation attainments,
"'By the National Covenant our fathers laid Popery prostrate. By the
Solemn League and Covenant they were successful in resisting prelatic
encroachments and civil tyranny. By it they were enabled to achieve the
Second Reformation... They were setting up landmarks by which the
location and limits of the city of God will be known at the dawn of the
millennial day... How can they be said to go forth by the footsteps of the
flock, who have declined from the attainments, renounced the covenants
and contradicted the testimony of "the cloud of witnesses"... All
the
Schisms (separations) that disfigure the body mystical of Christ...are the
legitimate consequences of the abandonment of reformation attainments --
the violation of covenant engagements.' This is sound doctrine and
historical truth combined. Again our author puts the important question,
'Is it not unfaithfulness to reject the obligations of the covenants of
former
times?' Yes, we think so, when their objects are not yet reached; and
moreover, that 'Confession of sin, and especially the sins of covenant
breaking should always accompany the renewal of our obligations.' This is
well said. Was it thought of at Pittsburgh, 1871? To good purpose he adds,
'In the renewal of covenants there should be no abridgment of former
obligations.' (All these excellent sentiments seemed to have been totally
forgotten or wholly disregarded when the time came for their practical use
and appropriate application. Some said, 'We have all we want;' and we
strongly suspect too many wanted none of the former obligations -- 'in this
free country.') And can this be denied? Once more we quote, -- 'The
opposition is not so much to covenanting, as it is to the covenants of our
fathers, and to the permanence of their obligations.' Then the author says
emphatically and somewhat prophetically, 'The church never will renew
her covenants aright until she embraces in her obligations all the
attainments sworn in the covenants, National and Solemn League. This was
done in the renovation at Auchensaugh, in Scotland'" (_A Short
Vindication
of Our Covenanted Reformation_, [1879] SWRB reprint 1996, pp. 38-39).
Our principles, constitution and terms of ecclesiastical fellowship (which
are in keeping with the attainments [2 John 8] won in both Reformations)
have been published for the whole world to see. That you might not
further misrepresent our standards (and thus oppose yourself) our terms
of ecclesiastical communion follow:
START QUOTE
The Session of Puritan Reformed Church
Motion Concerning Terms of Communion
Adopted March 22, 1996
Moved that the session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton adopt as
terms of communion (or communicant membership) the following six
terms:
1. An acknowledgement of the Old and New Testament to be the Word
of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.
2. That the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and
the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable unto, and founded upon
the Scriptures.
3. 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.
4. That public, social covenanting is an ordinance of God, obligatory on
churches and nations under the New Testament; that the National Covenant
and the Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution;
and that these Deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person;
and in consistency with this, that the Renovation of these Covenants at
Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the word of God.
5. An approbation of the faithful contendings of the martyrs of Jesus,
especially in Scotland, against Paganism, Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and
Sectarianism; immoral civil governments; Erastian tolerations and
persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial Testimony emitted
by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 with supplements from
the Reformed Presbyterian Church; as containing a noble example to be
followed, in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all
corruptions embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states.
6. Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Savior by walking in all
His commandments and ordinances blamelessly.
END QUOTE
(The six "Terms of Ministerial and Christian Communion in the Reformed
Presbyterian Church" listed above, along with "Queries to be put
to
Candidates for Ordination," can be found on pages 216-217 in the _Act,
Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_,
[1876 edition] SWRB reprint 1995.)
Sadly, you seem blissfully unaware of any of the specific principles of the
covenanted Reformation which I have outlined, our specific terms of
communion, or how they apply to our situation today; and yet you are
willing to oppose us (and therefore the old Covenanters) with the most
severe epithets. Moreover, your simplistic equating of our views with
those of the anabaptists only continues to testify of your ignorance; as
anyone who has even the least familiarity with the Protesting Covenanters
will recognize at once (and the others just have to check the history books
-- as even some of our worst enemies, over the last 350 years, have been
more intellectually honest than you have in representing our positions).
Rutherford an anabaptist? -- wow, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you
are that ill informed.
>You did not like my assertion that you all are perfectionistic. In your
>defense, you say that you have cited many "historic references in
our
>discussion." The issue is not your representation of (some) of our
reformed
>forefathers. The issue is your ignoring of the flow of covenantal
history
>since that time.
No, the issue is *your* ignoring of the flow of covenantal history since
that
time: which has been decidedly downhill.
Tell me, how many nationally covenanted Presbyterian churches are there
today? What General Assembly would you say matches that of the Church
of Scotland from 1638-1649? How many churches and nations are filled
with people (and leaders) willing to submit to a covenanted uniformity
such as was aimed at in the Solemn League and Covenant? How many
churches and nations have bound themselves to obey all of Christ's law
and testimony, as England, Scotland and Ireland did in the Solemn League
and Covenant? What confessions are being produced today which rival the
Westminster Confession of Faith? What catechisms are being produced
which match the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms? What
scholars are producing works which compare to the works of Samuel
Rutherford, George Gillespie, and many others of this period?
The period since the second Reformation has been one step back after
another. This is clearly seen when one compares the standard practices
prevalent during the second Reformation with those of the so-called
"Presbyterians" of our day. Because you are so much a part of the
modern
defection (and, to be fair, you are at some points among the best of the
neopresbyterians) this will be very hard for you to see -- but we will
continue to pray that God will open your eyes.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>You objected to my "ad hominem assertions" which were
"not
>the truthful and gracious speech" you had hoped for. Believe me, I
am not
>trying to resolve this by name-calling. I honestly believe that you do
not
>see what you are doing. Your handling of my scriptural counter-examples
are
>a case in point. When I asked about David and the showbread, and bowing
in
>the house of Rimmon, and worshipping in a synagogue, and sacrificing
only to
>the Lord in the high places, etc. you said that to "ask such
questions as
>above is not helpful to me at all."
REG BARROW WRITES:
All these questions will again (they are not new questions and have all
been answered by faithful Presbyterians before) be fully answered (D.V.)
in due time in the books and articles that I intend to publish (or
distribute)
in the future. Many of the books that I have already published also contain
the answers you are asking for. If I get time I will send you the books with
the answers to each of these questions all marked out (free of charge -- to
show you that I am arguing in good faith and that I still desire the best
for
you). Remember, I didn't start this strife between us, you did (Prov.
26:17).
Also, what I believe Greg was referring to when he said that to "ask
such
questions as above is not helpful to me at all," was that such
questions
have nothing to do with the charges at hand -- concerning what you
printed in slandering me. He was not saying these question are of no value
regarding the other issues that you raised. Greg would not be presently
writing a book which revolved around these types of questions if he
thought they were of no value in any sense. He was merely trying to keep
you focused on the issue of the false claims which you published about me.
Your questions are good questions and you are to be commended for even
thinking of them -- it shows that you have done more thinking on this
issue than most. But, these questions (regarding separation and worship)
have nothing to do with answering the charges about whether or not what
you printed about me was true. The issue concerning what you printed is
what we need resolved first. These other questions regarding biblical
separation and worship will be answered (again) in due time -- as I (really
the old Reformers) have already answered your question regarding Moses'
seat above (cf. Prov. 12:15).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>You then said I had not brought any
>evidence! What are such passages if not evidence of the very point at
issue?
>You said you want to keep "the whole law." So answer me this
-- in
keeping
>the whole law, would you excommunicate Obadiah for remaining in charge
of
>Ahab's house?
REG BARROW WRITES:
Of course not, this was a civil matter and no sinful oath or actions were
involved (that we know of). At the point at which Obadiah would have had
to take any sinful oaths to serve Ahab (cf. Appendix A and C in _The
Ordinance of Covenanting_ by John Cunningham [1843], SWRB reprint
1996), or would have had to publicly violate the law of God *HIMSELF,*
then he would have come under the discipline of a duly constituted church
court, if the sin was known (and if such a court existed -- remember that
in the days of Elijah the visible church had become so "invisible"
that even
the greatest prophet in Israel at that time thought that he was the only
believer left [1 Kings 19:14]; cf. vol. 1, p. 25 of Calvin's _Institutes_
[Battles
edition, Westminster Press] for some interesting comments on Elijah's
situation and the teaching which Calvin draws out of it in regard to the
visibility of the visble church. More on this can also be found in Wylie's
_Two Sons of Oil_; pp. 50-53).
This is also the case regarding all slaves, employees, and even those living
in covenant breaking nations like Canada and the USA.
Shields again sheds light on the principles involved, having qualified what
follows with the qualification that I cite above (and many more). He writes,
"As we find the Lord's resenting it as a servitude, under which they
were
servants even in their own land, which did yield increase unto the kings
whom the Lord had set over them, because of their sins, Neh. ix. 36, 37. 2.
In divers cases there may be some compliance with a mere occupant, that
hath no right to reign; as upon this account the noble marquis of Argyle
and lord Warriston suffered for their compliance with the usurper
Cromwell. Such may be the warrantableness, or goodness, or necessity, or
profitableness of a compliance, when people are by providence brought
under a yoke which they cannot shake off, that they may part with some
of their privileges, for the avoidance of the loss of the rest, and for the
conveniency and profit, peace and safety of themselves and their country,
which would be in hazard, if they did not comply; they may do whatsoever
is due from them to the public weal, whatsoever is an office of their
station
or place, or which they have any other way a call unto, whatsoever may
make for their own honest interest, without wronging others, or the
country's liberties in their transactions with these powers, even though
such a compliance may be occasionally to the advantage of the usurpers,
seeing good and necessary actions are not to be declined for the ill effects
that are accidental to them, and arise from the use which others make of
them" (_A Hind Let Loose_, [1797 ed.] SWRB reprint 1996, p. 339).
Furthermore, it has been pointed out, using other Old Testament worthies
as examples, why some acted in one way (toward the civil government of
the day) and some in another (and as I am sure you will agree, this was
not because the Bible contradicts itself or is unclear regarding the
Christian's duty concerning civil government). The article _The Right of
Dissent from an Immoral Civil Government_ (an SWRB reprint taken from
a mid-nineteenth century Covenanter magazine) states,
START QUOTE
"But, it may be asked, how is the conduct of Joseph, Nehemiah and
Daniel,
&c., who held office under immoral governments, to be reconciled with
the
principle pleaded for in this paper. The acts even of good men cannot be
used in argument against a principle approved of God, and established by
the strongest testimony. To their own Master they stand or fall. The acts of
none of these men, in accepting office, is marked with that full and
indubitable evidence of divine approval that characterizes the act of Moses
in refusing office. If consistency required us to condemn one or the other,
we must condemn them and not him. But consistency does not demand the
disapprobation of either. They all acted in obedience to God, and on the
same great principles. All the instances on record in the Bible, of good men
holding office under an immoral government, are clearly of an
extraordinary character, and arose from very peculiar circumstances, and
were designed by God to accomplish special purposes. Such cases are not
the regular and ordinary operations of the government, but are spoken of
as rare and singular exceptions which happened in its administration. The
conduct of these worthy and eminent saints is referred to as a remarkable
interposition of Divine Providence in behalf of the church of God, when she
had been brought into the greatest extremity of suffering and danger.
There is no evidence that Joseph in Egypt, Mordecai in Persia, or Daniel in
Babylon, identified themselves with those governments, or took an oath of
allegiance to them. The remarkable circumstances in which they were
called to office, and the wonderful and miraculous powers which they
displayed, and for which they were appointed, would evidently supersede
the necessity of an ordinary and routine introduction. These men were
ministers by authority raised up and fitted, and appointed to rule in and
over these governments, and clothed with extraordinary powers by
Jehovah himself, for the accomplishment of grand purposes in divine
providence.
It follows, therefore, that the conduct of such men, acting in such
circumstances, and clothed with such powers, and for special purposes,
cannot afford a precedent for Christians in totally different circumstances,
approving of an immoral government and swearing to support it. The acts
of an ambassador extraordinary and duly authorized, appointed for a
special purpose, are they the rule of petty magistrates and constables?
In the government of Egypt, Joseph accepted an office, and Moses refused
one. The office which Joseph accepted was not an integral part of the
government, but one appointed at the instance and recommendation of
Joseph himself, for a specified object, and not governed by existing laws.
Here then was no obstacle to his acceptance. The office which Moses
refused was a permanent and essential part of the existing government, to
be regulated by established principles and precedents of acknowledged
authority, and implied incorporation with the political organization. Hence
the different conduct of these men, both serving God and doing his will.
It were easy to show, were it necessary, but it is not, that, during the
period of the Babylonian captivity, the people of God continued to sustain a
distinct civil character, and did not identify with the Chaldean, or Persian
government.
We have now before us a great truth. From the calling of Abraham until
the coming of Christ, the people of God never acknowledged or identified
themselves with any government, but that one which God himself placed
over them. They continued to maintain the ground of dissent from all
immoral governments under which they lived for twenty-eight
generations."
END QUOTE
The answer to your Obadiah question also ties into why it is sinful for a
Christian to vote in Canada or the USA. Currently, to vote in these
countries
is to homologate immoral civil constitutions and to put someone, as your
representative, in a position to swear a sinful oath to these antichrist
documents (which is a violation of the third commandment). The same
applies to the church -- immoral constitutions necessitate sinful terms of
communion. No Christian can lawfully submit himself to an immoral
ecclesiastical constitution or sinful terms of communion (since church
members enter into the sins of the backsliding ministers who draft such
unlawful constitutions when they testify to their oneness with these harlot
bodies by receiving the Lord's Supper at their hands [cf. Reasons 1, 9, 10,
and especially 14, plus the whole section on civil government, in _Plain
Reasons for Presbyterian Dissenting..._ by Andrew Clarkson, John
Anderson's _Alexander and Rufus: or a Series of Dialogues of Church
Communion_ and W.J. McKnight's _Concerning Close Communion_] or by
sitting under their preaching [cf. James Douglas's _Strictures on Occasional
Hearing_]).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>The fact that you do not see the relevance of such questions
>reveals the extent of your problem. Which is greater -- the Reformation
or
>the faith which produced it?
REG BARROW WRITES:
All *true* Reformation is the outworking of the faith -- if it is not
faithfulness it is not Reformation!
"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set"
(Prov.
22:28).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>For the Covenants,
>Douglas Wilson
>Cordially,
>
>Douglas Wilson
>Credenda/Agenda
>dougwils@moscow.com
>P.O. Box 8741
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
REG BARROW WRITES:
Which covenants are you referring to? You deny the Reformation
covenants on many fronts, not the least of which is clearly displayed in
your writings on worship, separation and the church.
Your recent review of Frame's book is another case in point. When you say
that Frame's book is useful as a "critique of the strict
regulativist," who are
you talking about? The "strict regulativists" are all the best
Presbyterian
and Reformed leaders since the sixteenth century (even the best Dutch
writers counseled the civil authorities to remove the organs from their
churches on the basis of what you call the "strict" application of
the
regulative principle). If you think that Frame's book is useful for anything
other than exemplifying and thereby revealing the gross apostasy
prevalent in modern church, then you are far more ignorant (and blinded
by your own idolatry) than I had first suspected. Moreover, and I wouldn't
be surprised if you already know this, your version of so-called
"classical
Protestantism," as espoused in your public writings, would have
definitely
put you outside of the visible church as it was constituted during the
covenanted Reformation of the seventeenth century. Furthermore, if you
look carefully at the "covenanted uniformity" which Calvin was
setting up
in Geneva, you would have not lasted long there, either. Your heterodox
views of worship, government, discipline and the sacraments would have
placed you outside of the two most classical of the visible Protestant
settlements of Christ's kingdom on earth, thus far in history. You may not
have the literature at this point to understand what I am saying (and I do
not say it with any malicious intent, as I still plan on sending you a
number of these titles to review, which I hope will help you to see how far
you are from what the church has already attained); but when the source
documents from the first and second Reformation periods, which we are
now publishing (at a rate of about 150-200 titles per year), get into the
hands of enough people, it will become a lot harder for the modern anti-
Covenanters (whether "evangelicals," neoprebyterians, or what have
you)
to bamboozle their followers with a few quotes out of context, slick looking
covers, sound bite articles, and a little slander of those with whom they
disagree.
Those "natural allies" of which you speak above will soon have to
declare
themselves for the Reformation as it was (and repent, as we have, of our
pride and arrogance in thinking that we have improved on what our best
Reformed forefathers had done -- because after reading them I can't think
of a single area where the modern church has outdone the best Reformers)
or honestly declare that they do not follow the best of the Reformation
forefathers. At that time the lines will be drawn: the paleopresbyterians on
one side (adhering to the biblical attainments of "mother Kirk"
and "the
faith which was once delivered unto the saints") and the
neopresbyterians
(and other so-called "evangelicals") on the other (espousing an
eclectic
mishmash of truth and heresy which no one from the past would fully
recognize).
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).
>and with the hope of peace between us,
REG BARROW WRITES:
There will be no peace between us on a false basis. Any peace before you
repent of your slander and biblical attainment denying heresies would be
the same type of false peace that you so vehemently contend for in the
ecclesiastical realm -- and which we, with all the faithful followers of
Christ, denounce. "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my
people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer.
6:14).
The scripture is clear: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Should I listen to Scripture or
your
latitudinarian fantasies?
I will close with a pertinent and timely citation from _A Short Vindication
of Our Covenanted Reformation_ by the Reformed Presbytery,
"(T)here is a rule in Logic which the learned acknowledge to be
correct,
*Majus et minus non variant speciem*, -- 'greater or less does not vary the
nature of a thing.' And we are enjoined to 'mark them which cause
divisions and offences *contrary to the doctrine which we have learned*;
and avoid them, Rom. 16:17: as also to 'withdraw ourselves from every
brother that walketh disorderly' -- yes, though a brother. 2 Thes. 3:6; 1
Tim. 3:5. No, no, we are not uncharitable. While hating Pharisaic
exclusiveness, we no less dislike the spurious charity that 'suffers sin
upon
a brother' without rebuke. Lev. 19:17; Titus 1:13... We pretend to no
superior light, or wisdom, or sanctity; we aim only at removing the
rubbish, that the ancient landmarks may reappear, and on the principle of
charity, which comprises the whole moral law (Rom. 8:8-10), we have not
shunned to mention names of leaders in public measure of defection,
following the example of our Lord, prophets, apostles and our witnessing
ancestors... We (also--RB) distinguish here between such as are advancing
and those who are retrograding (lamentably, which category, Doug, we
would put you in at this point--RB), as our witnessing fathers always did,
and towards which parties our deportment ought to be different. To those
advancing we extend a helping hand, but from those declining we are
commanded to 'turn away.' (2 Tim. 3:1-5)... To all those in whose heart the
Lord has preserved a supreme love to Himself and to His truth, sealed by
the blood of heroic and patriotic martyrs, as that truth has been
transmitted historically in doctrine, worship, government and discipline, --
the practical results of our Covenants, National and Solemn League: to all
such we address the words of good Hezekiah: 'Now, be ye not stiff-necked,
as your fathers were; but yield yourselves unto the Lord, and enter into
his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified forever, that the fierceness of his
wrath may turn away from you'" (pp. 48, 49, 50).
Again, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I call you to repent of your
sinful slander of my name (and now, also of your sinful slander of the
Covenanters [old and new] and the biblical attainments of the covenanted
Reformation). For in these slanders you have stated that I and the
Covenanted forefathers which I follow are the ones who "troubleth
Israel:"
thus, I can only reply with Elijah, "I have not troubled Israel; but
thou, and
thy father's house (i.e. all those modern "evangelical"
neopresbyterians
who are the malignant spawn of the Reformation denying Revolution
settlement, theologically), in that ye have forsaken the commandments of
the LORD" (1 Kings. 18:17-18).
I appeal to you Doug: deal with the sin which started this controversy (i.e.
your slanderous "Telepathy" column) so that true reconciliation
can take
place and further scandal (regarding this point) can be obviated. Obviously,
though, your numerous departures from the pattern of Apostolic
Presbyterianism as set forth in Scripture (and reasserted by our classical
Protestant forefathers) will need to be more fully addressed (and
hopefully resolved) in future correspondence (books, newsletters, etc.).
Please reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely, Reg Barrow, President
STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 780 450 3730
P.S. The following Scripture verses pretty much sum up my view of you
and much of modern "evangelicalism" (especially its leaders) -- in
regard
to all that has been lost in terms of the attainments of the Reformations of
the past (especially concerning the visible church) -- and this is not to
say
that I am not grieved by our contemporary defection or that I do not pray
often for a return to "the old paths":
O LORD, thou knowest: remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my
persecutors; take me not away in thy longsuffering: know that for thy sake
I have suffered rebuke. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and
thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called
by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. *I sat not in the assembly of the
mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand*: for thou hast
filled
me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable,
which refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and
as waters that fail? Therefore thus saith the LORD, If thou return, then
will
I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth
the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: *let them return
unto thee; but return not thou unto them*. And I will make thee unto this
people a fenced brazen wall: and they shall fight against thee, but they
shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee to save thee and to
deliver thee, saith the LORD (Jer. 15:15-20, emphases added)
See Calvin's _Commentary_ (vol. 9, pp. 282-300 in *part II*) on this
passage and see if Calvin did not understand the Scripture regarding the
church and separation as I set it forth above.
5. REG BARROW'S THIRD REPLY TO DOUG WILSON
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>February 25, 1997
>
>Dear Reg,
>
>Look. In the interests of obeying the ninth commandment, I do not tell
>people that I have read a book unless I have read it all. If I have read
a
>chapter or two, I do not say I have read the book. That would be untrue.
>When I give my students an assignment, they do not have the honest
option of
>saying they have read the assignment unless they have read it all. If
they
>have not read it all, then I am under no obligation to credit them as
having
>done so. It is entirely reasonable to say that someone who has read part
of
>a book has not read the book. This is how I speak when referring to my
own
>book-reading; we have done nothing here inconsistent with the golden
rule.
>On the other hand, in all fairness, it would also be misleading to say
that
>someone had *not* read a book if they had merely failed to read the last
few
>sentences.
REG BARROW WRITES:
Monday, February 3, 1997
Sorry Doug, but I don't buy your evasiveness. Everyone who has talked to
me about the "Telepathy" piece (excepting one, who said that it
could
*possibly* mean what you put forth above) has taken what you have
written to mean that I had not read the book at all (i.e. that I had not
read
even one page). Since this is not the case (and you have not shown a
willingness to clarify publicly what you have written) the charge of
violating the ninth commandment stands.
Just for the record (and in case this goes before the session of the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton) I have highlighted (below) the portions of
the ninth commandment which I believe you have violated. Questions and
Answers 143-145 are cited in full from the original edition of the
_Westminster Larger Catechism_.
Question 143: Which is the ninth commandment?
Answer: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.
Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the
preserving and *promoting of truth* between man and man, and the *good
name of our neighbor*, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the
truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, *clearly*, and fully, speaking
the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in
all
other things whatsoever; a *charitable esteem* of our neighbors; *loving,
desiring, and rejoicing in their good name*; sorrowing for, and covering of
their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending
their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and *unwillingness to
admit of an evil report*, concerning them; discouraging talebearers,
flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and
defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and
*practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good
report*.
Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all
*prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors*, as well as our
own, especially in public judicature; *giving false evidence*, suborning
false witnesses, *wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause*,
*outfacing and overbearing the truth*; passing unjust sentence, *calling
evil good, and good evil*; rewarding the wicked according to the work of
the righteous, and the *righteous according to the work of the wicked*;
forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding
our
peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint
to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end,
or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or *in doubtful and equivocal
expressions*, to the prejudice of truth or justice; *speaking untruth,
lying,
slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing*, whispering, scoffing,
reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; *misconstructing intentions,
words, and actions*; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking
too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and
graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; *hiding, excusing, or extenuating
of sins, when called to a free confession*; unnecessary discovering of
infirmities; *raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil
reports,
and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion*; envying or
grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair
it,
rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; *scornful contempt*, fond
admiration; breach of lawful promises; *neglecting such things as are of
good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering
what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name*.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>In a discussion between reasonable people, if we had unknowingly misled
>people on how informed (or uninformed) you were concerning Frame's
book, you
>could have said to us, "Hey, guys, lighten up. So I didn't read the
>Scripture Index. Give me a break." We would then have said,
"Sorry," and
>published a correction. What we got was a lot of static about the ninth
>commandment and the inaccuracy of the charge of telepathy, as though
we were
>seriously claiming that you are telepathic! Please remember what a joke
is,
>and keep in mind that the key word is Covenant, and not Solemn.
REG BARROW WRITES:
To lie about a brother in jest is no virtue. Maybe this will help you, when
you are tempted to this sin in the future, to learn not to joke about such
serious matters. Many have commented to me that your work (especially
in the "Cave of Adullam") lacks credibility because of the
excessive use of
sarcasm, satire and jesting. "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or
covetousness, *let it not be once named among you*, as becometh saints;
Neither filthiness, nor *foolish talking*, nor *jesting*, which are not
convenient: but rather giving of thanks" (Eph. 5:3-4). Also see: 1 Tim.
2:2-
4; 1 Tim. 3:8, 11; Titus 1:8; Titus 2:2, 6-7.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>In your Knox Ring post, one of the phrases you used about Frame (and
Jordan)
>was this: "given the *idolatrous* nature of their beliefs regarding
public
>worship." The thing which prompted us to make fun of what you were
doing was
>our distress that you would say such things in a public discussion when
>*your own* comments clearly indicated that your first-hand knowledge of
his
>book was minimal.
REG BARROW WRITES:
But not minimal in regard to the specific comments I was making or the
previous writings of Frame *and Jordan* (**on worship**) which I had
read. Please note that I was referring to their beliefs in general (in the
portion cited above) and not just as espoused in Frame's latest book. You
argue (above) from my general statement about Frame *and Jordan* based
on my knowledge of Frame's book alone. How does this follow? In the
portion which you quote from me I was taking into account all of the work
done by Frame and Jordan, which I have read. Surely you don't think that
I would argue that Jordan was idolatrous solely based on what Frame
wrote in his latest book. In any case, this is your mistake and does not
justify what you did in the "Telepathy" column.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>You said, "From the quotes I have seen here and elsewhere
>. . .", thus indicating that your knowledge of the book was from
"quotes."
>You also said that you had requested a review from someone who had
read
>Frame's entire book. We concluded from your words that your first-hand
>knowledge of Frame's book was piece-meal, and obtained from
"quotes."
REG BARROW WRITES:
Then you should have said that I had not *finished* reading the book and
not written the "Telepathy" piece in a way that was so misleading
-- or as
the Westminster divines wrote, "in doubtful and equivocal
expressions."
By the way, who was it that wrote the "Telepathy" slander? Is
there some
reason why you do not want to let me know who actually penned this
piece? Continuing to hide the author's name would be in keeping with my
charge that the writer of "Telepathy" lacks moral courage (cf. my
"Letter to
the Editor" below).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>Perhaps we can resolve the situation in this way. We are willing to
stand
>corrected, and in public. How much of Frame's book had you read (and
how
>much of it was read to you) before you made your comments about his
likely
>excommunication in the days of the Reformation? Because we are not
>perfectionists, if you had read all but the last three paragraphs, say,
we
>will publish a full clarification & correction. If you read isolated
quotes
>here and there, then we think you still owe Frame an apology (his errors
>notwithstanding), and we stand by the justice and accuracy of what we
>printed. If it is somewhere in between, let's talk.
REG BARROW WRITES:
I had glanced at the book and had had read to me (in a 3 hour
conversation with a friend) a number of the most offensive sections of
Frame's work. I had also seen portions elsewhere (in promotional material
and on the web). Each section was a *clear violation* of the second
commandment -- and therefore idolatry -- especially those sections which
were read to me over the phone (as they were selected, by someone who
understands the classic Reformed position regarding the regulative
principle, to highlight Frame's apostasy). Not only were these sections of
Frame's book against Scripture, but they also transgressed the teaching of
the Westminster Confession -- which Frame has supposedly vowed to
uphold. I do not know exactly how many pages comprise what I had seen
and heard (of Frame's book) previous to my comments on the Knox Ring,
but that is beside the point; Frame (and Jordan) are both idolaters and I
will not apologize for bearing witness to the truth.
In short, the point is not (and never has been) the *quantity* of
information I had; rather, the salient point of our discussion is the
*quality* of information upon which I based my comments concerning
Frame. Unless Frame contradicted and denied all the specific information
which I had regarding his book, in the rest of his book (and I don't think
that he is that stupid), then the question of quantity is of no consequence
anyway. As it turned out the lesser amount of evidence (which I first had)
and the greater amount of evidence (which I had after finishing the book)
agreed completely -- Frame had not contradicted himself (generally
speaking) and had proven himself to be a consistent apostate, heretic and
idolater (regarding biblically Reformed worship). Calvin would have most
certainly excommunicated him and I continue to maintain that I have
testified to the truth -- on the Knox Ring and since -- and God giving me
strength I will continue to do so!
Furthermore, after my Knox Ring post and before your "Telepathy"
comments (as I note above) I had finished reading Frame's book for
myself. Taken as a whole, this book is much worse than I had originally
thought (when I just had knowledge of portions of it). Had I known how
thoroughly vile the book was throughout, my comments on Knox Ring
would have been much stronger (again see below).
Unless you are willing to print a full retraction of your statements
(without
qualifications) in the "Cave of Adullam" section of your magazine,
I will be
taking this matter to our session for a ruling (in keeping with the third
step of discipline listed in Matt. 18:15-17). I will then be publishing what
has transpired.
If you are not willing to repent publicly after receiving this letter,
please
let me know.
I would also like to know (should you refuse to repent) whether or not I
have your permission to publish your comments regarding our discussions
-- in this and our previous letters regarding the "Telepathy"
scandal.
Barring your public repentance I am planning on making my responses to
you available to the Christian community at large (in book form, on the
web, etc.).
If you are willing to repent, please send me a copy of the retraction which
you will be printing in the "Cave of Adullam."
Please respond at your earliest convenience.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>Cordially in Christ,
>Douglas Wilson
>Cordially,
>Douglas Wilson
>Credenda/Agenda
>dougwils@moscow.com
>P.O. Box 8741
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
REG BARROW WRITES:
Sincerely, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB
Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 780 450 3730
P.S. My Letter to the Editor concerning this matter is attached below.
Monday, February 3, 1997
Dear Doug:
Since I have long prayed that you (and the others who write for
_Credenda/Agenda_) would come up to the attainments (especially the
corporate attainments which still bind the moral person of the visible
church in its lawfully constituted form [cf. Calvin's _Institutes_ 4.2.12])
of
the second (or covenanted) Reformation (Phil. 3:16), it is with some
sadness that I read the comments found in your "Cave of Adullam"
(Vol. 8,
No. 4). Here you critique my comments from Knox Ring regarding the
spiritual harlotry promoted by John Frame in his heretical new book on
worship. In this column your writer twice claims that before I had made
my comments regarding Frame, I hadn't read his book; and like a court
jester (Eph. 5:4, Prov. 26:17-19) you title this diatribe "Great
Experiments
in Telepathy."
I have two problems with your invective.
First, what you claim (that I had gained "all" my insight on Frame
"without
reading the book!") is not true and thus you have violated the ninth
commandment. I openly and freely admit that at the time of the writing of
my letter (which can be viewed at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FrameExc.htm
) I
had not *finished* reading Frame's *complete book* -- though I had read
portions of it. Furthermore, large (and the most "damnable")
sections of
Frame's book, which I had not yet read personally at that time, had
*already been read to me over the phone*. Surely you recognize that most
people can smell a cesspool long before they step in it and that one need
not read every page of every heretic before speaking against heresy. Thus,
it should be obvious, that contrary to the comments in your column, I was
already thoroughly familiar with the most salient points of the book
relative to the critique that I was making. On this point you have clearly
and publicly slandered my name and therefore (after numerous
unsuccessful private attempts) I now, publicly, call you to repentance.
Moreover, after having read through Frame's entire book (some portions
twice) and having annotated and indexed it, I want to make it perfectly
clear that this work is *much worse* than I had at first thought. Frame's
book is a nauseating example of the backsliding and ignorance that exists
today regarding Reformed worship – especially among those who call
themselves Reformed. I now only wish that I had *more severely
denounced Frame's poisonous piece of pestilent propaganda*. Not only
would Calvin have excommunicated Frame (cf. my _Calvin, Close
Communion and the Coming Reformation_ which is FREE at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CalvinCC.htm
), but
so would have the Westminster Divines -- especially the Scottish
Covenanters (cf. _The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of
Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_), some of whom
shed their blood in opposition to false worship far less heinous (at points)
than that which Frame promotes. And Frame thinks he holds to the
Westminster Confession. What delusion!
Kevin Reed's defense of classical Protestant worship, in his review of
Frame, should also be of special interest in this case (it's free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FrameWor.htm
) The
Charismatics may be taking the long road to Romish worship (with most of
the contemporary "Reformed" crowd lagging just behind), but Frame
is no
friend of the Reformation when he is standing by waiting to fill the
ecclesiastical beast's gas tank. With his rejection of the classic
Reformation
understanding of the regulative principle he has already conceded victory
to ecclesiastical antichrist (speaking in terms of the complex moral person
denoted as antichrist in Scripture). Even a cursory reading of George
Gillespie's _Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ or John Flavel's
_Antipharmacum Saluberrimum..._ (which I retitled _A Warning Against
Backsliding, False Worship and False Teachers_ when I published it) will
testify to this fact (not to mention 99.9% of the literature on worship
which
came out of the *Calvinistic* Reformations of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries).
My second problem with your comments is that they not only demonstrate
a manifest lack of integrity, but they also expose a lack of moral courage
on the part of the writer. How so you ask? My comments about Frame's
book were first publicly submitted to the Knox Ring email discussion
group. As your writer notes this is "a public on-line discussion"
group. Why
did your author not challenge me on the Knox Ring? Why did he wait for
some time and then run back behind "mama's skirt" to trash my reputation
behind the full editorial control of Credenda/Agenda? I put my comments
in the public arena and believe me I took the heat. The gutless wonder
who wrote "Great Experiments in Telepathy" didn't even have the
integrity
to meet me with his slander face to face – where I could freely reply. Such
tactics are more becoming a Jesuit than one who claims to be Reformed.
Moreover, to exhibit further how the Lord traps the unfaithful in their own
snares, you add an editorial comment stating "We have not read all
Barrow's comments on Frame, and that which we did read was not read
very carefully--but that should present no barrier to the rigorous
exchange of ideas!" "The *rigorous* exchange of ideas;" give
me a break!
This was exactly what your author seemed to be studiously avoiding -- he
certainly was too cowardly to exchange any ideas in the open forum of
Knox Ring, where he was not protected by _Credenda/Agenda's_ editorial
control.
At this point I think that it would be safe to say that we have discovered a
Saul in the "Cave of Adullam" (Prov. 19:5).
If your writer has evidence that I violated the ninth commandment (as he
insinuates in his "Mutterings" about your "Regnant
Follies") then so charge
me and produce proof. If not, he would be wise to "hold his peace"
(Prov.
17:28), *after* having publicly repented for this violation of the ninth
commandment. The same goes for you Doug. As editor of
Credenda/Agenda_ (notwithstanding the good you do), you have now
printed lies concerning matters that you had not verified (and which you
cannot verify!). Sadly, even if you now do what is right and publicly repent
and retract your false statements, this will still be a blow to your
credibility among your more thoughtful readers. I know I will have a hard
time trusting anything that you say in your "Cave of Adullam"
again. But,
on the other hand, by publicly repenting you will also be showing genuine
integrity, thus restoring some of the lost confidence and trust that this
incident has engendered among your readers and your friends.
I had expected better from _Credenda Agenda_ (and have in the past and
still continue to pray for it) -- but it seems that the love of idols (like
"Watts whims," i.e. uninspired man-made "hymns") can be
very distracting
to those taken captive by them -- for this is not the first time that I have
been slandered in conjunction with my defense of Reformation worship
(Matt. 5:11).
I pray that you will be granted the grace to properly repent of this mis-
step and that your repentance will be publicly perceived as genuine (in
that you "bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance" Luke
3:8).
Sincerely,
Reg Barrow,
President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
6. REG BARROW'S FOURTH REPLY TO DOUG WILSON
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>February 7, 1997
>
>Dear Reg,
>
>I am sorry we are not yet of one mind, but still hope that we can make
some
>little progress.
>
>You should try the same thing with your post on the Knox Ring that you
did
>with my explanation to you. Read your initial post to ten folks, and how
>many people would come away from your post thinking that you had read
>Frame's book? With a clean conscience on this before the Lord, *we sure
>didn't.* If this is not the case, and we were wrong, we *have* said that
we
>are willing to stand corrected. That is why I asked you in my last
letter
>for a clarification concerning how much of it you had actually read (a
>question you didn't exactly answer). If you had read a substantial
portion
>of the book (or had it read to you), we are more than willing to say so
in
>print.
>
>In response to this inquiry of mine, you said, "I do not know
exactly how
>many pages comprise what I had seen and heard (of Frame's book)
previous to
>my comments on the Knox Ring, but that is beside the point . . ."
But this
>is exactly the point concerning your charge against me over the ninth
>commandment. Whether your assumption about the rest of the book was
accurate
>is not our point. (I *agree* that the parts you didn't read were very
much
>like the parts you did, and perhaps worse.) Oftentimes, a vigilante mob
will
>hang the right guy, but the process is still a matter of concern. Our
reason
>for going into print was your method and lack of consideration for due
>process. You say that you don't know how many pages it was. Could you
>approximate? We would be happy to take your word for it.
>
>I have just reread your initial post. A fair reading of your statements
>would be that you had researched Jordan's views thoroughly and had
concluded
>he would be excommunicated by Calvin without a second thought, and
that from
>the quotes you had seen from Frame's book, he was in the same category.
Is
>this not a fair representation of what you said? And does this not lead
the
>average reader to think you had not read Frame's book?
>
>However, if this does not convince you, and you are still wanting to
submit
>a letter to the editor, I have a practical suggestion, divided in two.
The
>first brings some small limitation to your letter, but the other offers
an
>expansion of it.
>
>Would you be willing to cut your letter back to two-hundred and fifty
words,
>and limit the subject to your concerns over Adullam and the ninth
>commandment? (This would only be if you do not see the justice of what I
>have said above.) Incidentally, to save you space in this letter, we are
>*not* trying to protect the identity of the author of that piece.
Adullam
>usually functions as a group editorial effort. Doug Jones first saw your
>comment on Knox Ring, I decided we needed to do something with it,
made some
>suggestions concerning it to my son, Nathan, who wrote the rough draft.
The
>thing was then processed through an editorial meeting with all of us,
etc.
>For your writing purposes, the best thing to do is simply hold me
>responsible as the editor of the magazine.
>
>Secondly, with regard to the broader issues, we would be happy to give
you
>space in our Disputatio column to debate with me concerning the
substantive
>theological issues involved with situation revolving around the second
>commandment and the regulative principle. We would be willing to
debate the
>subject of worship under the title (if Frame doesn't mind), "Is
John Frame
>an Idolater?" Would you be willing for something of that nature?
>
>Taken together, this would give you more space than your letter as it
now
>stands. If my explanation of how we took your words -- "I know that
Jordan
>is an idolater, and from the bits and pieces I have seen, Frame is
too." --
>proves satisfactory and you do not want to submit a letter to the
editor,
>the offer of a debate in Disputatio still stands. (The offer of debate
would
>also extend, if you preferred, to Pastor Price).
>
>I hope this is satisfactory to you, and look forward to hearing from you
again.
>
>
>Cordially in Christ,
>Douglas
>Cordially,
>
>
>Douglas Wilson
>Credenda/Agenda
>dougwils@moscow.com
>P.O. Box 8741
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
REG BARROW WRITES:
Wednesday, February 12, 1997
Doug:
I do not believe that our correspondence is getting anywhere. You keep
making the same excuses, with a slightly new spin each letter. I still
maintain that what I did (in "Knox Ring") was perfectly legitimate
(and
part of my covenanted duty) and that your response (in the "Cave of
Adullam) was a violation of the ninth commandment. You have said
nothing that would cause me to retract my initial charges against you (for
all the reasons which I have already previously stated in our letters to
each other). Therefore I will be taking this matter to our session (in
fulfillment of Matt. 18:17). I will also be publishing my responses to you
--
to help clear my name and the name of Still Waters Revival Books -- on
the web and as a book. If you do not contact me (before Feb. 19/97) giving
me your permission to use your exact words (without monetary
compensation) in the book I plan to publish (for sale, and the book will be
sold at close to cost so as to eliminate the profit motive), then I will
summarize what you have said myself (as I did in my debate with Joe Bell,
cf. _A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting Redivivus_ free
at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovDebRB.htm
).
If I had the choice I would rather include all your words exactly as you
wrote them (and I do not know why you would not want your words to be
published, if you are not willing to retract them and repent of what you
have written). Furthermore, if you are willing to stand by what you have
written you will obtain a much larger hearing for your position. My
publication of your words will grant you a large amount of free publicity
which you would not otherwise have access to (and my publications [web
and book] will likely reach a much larger audience than you could ever
reach through Credenda/Agenda and Canon Press, including many people
that would never hear of your views). Since you have not retracted
anything which you have written against us thus far, I hope that you will
have the courage of your convictions to stand by your words; and be
willing to subject our "rigorous exchange of ideas" to public
scrutiny. But,
given your previous exhibition of lack of moral courage (as outlined in my
original letter to the editor, which you would not print because you said
that it was too long), I do not expect you to let your words stand.
Moreover, though you will not repent of and retract your slanderous
accusations against me, Still Waters Revival Books, the elders of the
session
of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton and the attainments of the
second Reformation, I believe that you will prove to the world that you
will not *publicly* stand by what you have written against us -- by not
giving me permission to use your words as you wrote them. Again, this
would be in keeping with my aforementioned assessment of your
character -- though I hope you prove me wrong. I guess we will see if I am
correct, regarding your level of courage and willingness to stand by what
you have written, on Feb 19/97. I am more than willing to stand by what I
have written; are you willing to do the same, Doug?
Concerning Disputatio, you already have a very bad reputation regarding
how you handle the editorial process in this section of your magazine.
Thus, I have no desire to enter into that forum with you **in its present
format**. It is my opinion that the sound byte quality of the debates in
Disputatio are for all practical purposes virtually useless (at least I
thought
they were when I used to read your magazine). I would be much more
interested in seeing you produce a book length response to the book that I
am about to publish rebuking you. We could then, as time permits, trade
book length responses back and forth. I think that this would be much
more edifying to those who would read our exchanges (as it would allow
for much more development of ideas, leave a better record for posterity,
etc.) and at the same time avoid all the misunderstandings and
shallowness engendered by the dwarfish debates that you presently
publish in Disputatio.
I may, however, consider debating you in your Disputatio column if you
increased the length of the debate to *at least* 6 magazine pages (though I
would prefer even more pages). I would also insist that what I write be
printed exactly as you receive it, without editorial tampering. This, of
course, would all take place within a pre-determined structure which
would give us both exactly the same amount of space (we could use word
counts to determine this) in which to present our cases. Written agreement
to these terms would have to be secured before I would write anything
that I would allow you to print.
I'll also ask Greg Price if he wants to debate you in your magazine; but I
will be suggesting to him that strict (and fair) guidelines be agreed to by
both parties before one word is ever exchanged. For example, that you (or
your writers) both begin and end the debates in Disputatio is certainly not
in keeping with standard (or fair) debating practice (and I am surprised
that no one has pointed this out to you earlier). I will also suggest that
all
other points related to the format of debate (regarding length, editorial
rights, republication rights, copyrights, etc.) be negotiated and that both
parties agree *in writing* to these terms before any exchanges actually
takes place. Of course if Greg Price decides to accept your challenge you
two will have to work out the details.
In any case all the elders of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton will
be receiving a copy of this letter (and they already have copies of
everything else that has transpired in our previous correspondence
concerning the "Telepathy" controversy, including my exact charges
against
you). I am also considering this reply my submission to our session to
render their official ecclesiastical judgement on my previously outlined
charges against you (in keeping with Matthew 18:17). The email addresses
of our session appear in the "cc" section of this letter.
Furthermore, since
you have finally divulged the specific identity of *some* of the others
involved in the "Telepathy" slander, I am now asking the elders of
the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton to include these people (Doug Jones
and Nathan Wilson) in the charges which I am now presenting before the
session. I will be forwarding copies of our previous correspondence to both
of these individuals so that they will know that they are being included in
my original charges (of violating the ninth commandment) against you.
Moreover, if you, and all those who had a hand in the production of
"Telepathy" continue to stand by what was published against me in
_Credenda/Agenda_ (Vol. 8, No. 4), I think that you should bring to light
(cf. John 3:19-21, Eph. 5:13, etc.) the names of all the individuals who
agree to and/or worked on the production of this piece -- so that they can
be included in my charges. If any of them are willing to repent *publicly*,
the charges against them will of course be dropped, forgotten and forgiven
(in keeping with the Scriptural directives).
You know Doug, this whole controversy has an ironic providential twist to
it. Before I was aware of your "Telepathy" piece (and probably
before you
had written it) I was already working on a book proving that Calvin, the
Westminster Divines, the Scottish General Assembly (1638-1649), the
Reformed Presbytery, etc., would have all rightly excommunicated Frame
(in accordance with Scriptural commands) for what he has written in his
new book on worship (had Frame lived under their authority). I was also
in the process of proving that the basis for Frame's excommunication (by
all the aforementioned individuals and bodies) would have taken place
because they would have considered him an idolater, schismatic, and
covenant breaker. Your attack on me interrupted the completion of this
book and instead resulted in a book rebuking you. I have taken this as a
providential indication (though both you and Frame stand in need of public
rebuke according to God's revealed will as expressed in Scripture) that
though Frame's heresy and idolatry (in opposition to the biblical
attainments achieved during previous Reformations) is much more obvious
than yours, the subtle nature of the errors which you publish (regarding
worship, the church, unity, etc.) is much more dangerous to the church. I
hope that my public testimony against you will serve as a warning to all
those who seek to faithfully walk in the "footsteps of the flock"
(Song 1:8) -
- and that one day you, and the others who work with you to bury the
covenanted Reformation (at points), will be granted repentance (regarding
not only your sins against me, but also [and more importantly in my mind]
regarding your rejection of the truth concerning the broader theological
matters which we have been discussing). You do not yet seem to
understand how many of your present positions deny the "Classical
Protestantism" you often claim you hold; but if you ever do any
detailed
study of the many Reformation source documents which we are once again
bringing back into public view (through our publication and distribution
channels), I do not think that you will be far from agreement with us -- at
least in agreeing that we are the theological heirs to the best Reformers
(i.e. the Classical Protestants) of the second or covenanted Reformation.
Many of the documents which prove this are now once again available
through Still Waters Revival Books (and many more are to come) and it is
my prayer you (and all others who love the truth) will make the time to
study these great treasures in detail. Furthermore, other men, far more
accomplished historians and scholars than you or any of the writers at
_Credenda/Agenda_, have already admitted what I set forth above. This is
extremely significant in light of what Scripture teaches about attainments
(as outlined in my second letter to you) and in that the Covenanters which
we follow produced the Westminster Standards as part of a desired
covenanted uniformity -- which was ultimately aimed at not only the
British Isles, but the whole world (cf. "The Solemn League and
Covenant"
cassette by Greg Price). The Covenanters desired a biblically unified and
covenanted Protestantism, and Protestants in France, the Netherlands, etc.,
had already expressed their desire to join in this covenanted uniformity.
How this noble venture was blocked and then buried (even by succeeding
generations of Protestants) is recounted in Greg's study (in the cassette
noted above); but please do not lose sight of the fact that this vision of a
covenanted and unified Protestantism is what we are once again reviving.
"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).
I have long hoped that you would join with us in this task, and still pray
for the same; so, please, prayerfully consider all of what has recently
transpired between us as my best attempt (following the biblical pattern)
at procuring your pubic repentance (on all the points at issue between us)
and opening the way to future cooperation (in the unity of the one true
faith). There will be no revival of truly classical Protestant belief until
the
church (individually and corporately) repents of all her previous
backsliding. To pretend that a compromised, attainment-denying unity is
of any use to the modern church will help no one and will do nothing to
remove the causes of God's wrath upon the church and the nations.
We will continue to fight for a biblically unified Protestantism -- but only
within the terms of unity which the Scripture prescribes. Though it may be
hard for some to understand, the fight for this unity will continue to
include (as it always has) public testimony against error; separation from
backsliding individuals, churches (to avoid schism) and nations; and
judicial actions against those who publicly oppose the truth. Therefore I
hope you understand that all my actions in our dispute have been
motivated by my love for the truth and my desire to see you, as a brother
in Christ, granted repentance. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend;
but the
kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Prov. 27:6).
In light of everything that I have written above, and to demonstrate my
sincerity in desiring the best for you, I would like to make the following
proposal. Before you do yourself any more damage in the public arena, I
suggest that you better acquainted yourself with the source literature of
the second Reformation (and some of the best books by those who have
written significant studies about this Reformation or defended certain
controversial points included in the covenanted testimony). If you (or any
of the others who write for you) will promise to read any of the following
books in the next year, I will send them to you free of charge. I am making
this offer with the hope that a careful study of this literature will bring
us
closer together and ultimately clear up many of the differences that now
exist between us. Let me know which of the following books any of your
writers at _Credenda/Agenda_ agree to read within the next year (please
list their names along with the books they promise to read if you take me
up on this offer) and I will forward copies to you free of charge. I am not
listing the original editions of the the National or Solemn League and
Covenant, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Larger or
Shorter Catechisms, the Directories for Public and Family Worship, the
Form of Presbyterial Church Government, or the the Acts of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland relative to these documents, etc.,
because these items are all readily available (in the Free Presbyterian
Publications edition of the _Westminster Confession of Faith_) -- and I
would think that most of your writers already have copies.
1. _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) by the REFORMED PRESBYTERY
2. _Auchensaugh Renovation of the National Covenant and Solemn League
and Covenant; with the Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to
Duties as they were Renewed at Auchensaugh in 1712... Also the
Renovation of These Public Federal Deeds Ordained at Philadelphia, Oct. 8,
1880, By the Reformed Presbytery, With Accommodation of the Original
Covenants, in Both Transactions, to their Times and Positions Respectively_
(1880 ed.) by the REFORMED PRESBYTERY
3. _A Hind Let Loose; or An Historical Representation of the Testimonies of
the Church of Scotland for the Interest of Christ with the True State
thereof
in all its Periods. Together with a Vindication of the Present Testimony
Against Popish, Prelatical, and Malignant Enemies of that Church, as it is
now Stated, for the Prerogatives of Christ, Privileges of the Church, and
Liberties of Mankind; and Sealed by the Sufferings of a Reproached
Remnant of Presbyterians there, Witnessing Against the Corruptions of the
Time: Wherein Several Controversies of Greatest Consequence are Enquired
into, and in Some Measure Cleared; Concerning Hearing of the Curates,
Owning of the Present Tyranny, Taking of Ensnaring Oaths and Bonds,
Frequenting of Field-Meetings, Defensive Resistance of Tyrannical Violence,
with Several Other Subordinate Questions Useful for these Times_ (1687,
1797 edition) by ALEXANDER SHIELDS
4. _The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the
Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive (1682)_ by the CHURCH OF
SCOTLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1638-1649
5. _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the
Church of Scotland_ (1637, reprinted from the 1660 edition) by GEORGE
GILLESPIE
6. _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ (1649
edition) by SAMUEL RUTHERFORD
7. _The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication: A
Peaceable Dispute for the Perfection of the Holy Scripture in Point of
Ceremonies and Church Government in which the Removal of the Service
Book is Justified. The Six Books of Erastus Against Excommunication are
Examined; with a Vindication of the Eminent Divine Theodore Beza Against
the Aspersions of Erastus, The Arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Richard
Hooker, Dr. Morton... and the Doctors of Aberdeen; Touching Will-Worship,
Ceremonies, Imagery, Idolatry, Things Indifferent, An Ambulatory
Government; The Due and Just Power of the Magistrate in Matters of
Religion, and the Arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so Far as they Side with
Erastus, are Moderately Discussed. (Facsimile, 1646, also contains:
"Scandal
and Christian Libertie")_ by SAMUEL RUTHERFORD
8. _A Short Vindication of our Covenanted Reformation_ (1879) by the
REFORMED PRESBYTERY
9. _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church
of Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil Government, and the
Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution Principles_ (1731) by
ANDREW CLARKSON
10. _Come Out From Among Them: The "Anti-Nicodemite" Writings of
John
Calvin_ by JOHN CALVIN (forthcoming)
11. _An Apologetical Relation of the Particular Sufferings of the Faithful
Ministers and Professors of the Church of Scotland Since 1660, Wherein
Several Questions, Useful for the Time, Are Discussed, etc., etc._ by JOHN
BROWN OF WAMPHRAY (Samuel Rutherford's student)
12. _Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty, or, The True
Resolution of a Present Controversy Concerning Liberty of Conscience_
(1644) by GEORGE GILLESPIE
13. _Alexander and Rufus; or a Series of Dialogues on Church Communion,
in Two Parts. Part 1: Vindication of Scriptural Church Communion in
Opposition to Latitudinarian Schemes. Part 2: Defence of the Communion
Maintained in the Secession Church_ (1862) by JOHN ANDERSON (Contains
some Seceder errors, but possibly the best book on Church communion).
14. _Strictures on Occasional Hearing_ (1820) by JAMES DOUGLAS
15. _An Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion, Adopted by
the Community of Dissenters, etc._ by the REFORMED PRESBYTERY
16. _The Testimony of Some Persecuted Presbyterian Ministers of the
Gospel Unto the Covenanted Reformation of the Church of Scotland, and to
the Present Expediency of Continuing to Preach the Gospel in the Fields,
and Against the Present Antichristian Toleration in its Nature and Design,
Tending to Bury all these in Oblivion, Lately Obtruded Upon, and Accepted
by the Body of this Nation_ by JAMES RENWICK
17. _The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism_ (1853) by WILLIAM ROBERTS
18. _A Warning Against Backsliding, False Worship and False Teachers_ by
JOHN FLAVEL
19. _A Testimony to the Covenanted Work of Reformation Between 1638-
1649 in Britain and Ireland_ by SAMUEL RUTHERFORD
20. _Calvin, Covenanting and Close Communion_ (1996) by REG BARROW
21. _A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting Redivivus_ by
REG BARROW
22. _Biblical Civil Government Versus the Beast; and, the Basis for Civil
Resistance_ (1996) by GREG PRICE
23. _The Solemn League and Covenant_ (1997) by GREG PRICE (cassette)
23. _The National Covenant_ (1997) by GREG PRICE (2 cassettes)
24. _Concerning Close Communion_ by W.J. MCKNIGHT
25. _The Covenant of Life Opened; Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace,
Containing Something of the Nature of the Covenant of Works, the
Sovereignty of God, the Extent of the Death of CHRIST, the Nature &
Properties of the Covenant of Grace: And Especially of the Covenant of
Suretyship or Redemption Between the LORD and the SON JESUS CHRIST,
and the Seal of Baptism: With some Practical Questions and Observations_
(1655) by SAMUEL RUTHERFORD
26. _The Declaration of Repudiation: A Public Testimony Against Modern
North American Evangelicalism_ (1996) by MICHAEL WAGNER
27. _Paleopresbyterianism Versus Neopresbyterianism_ (1996) by
MICHAEL WAGNER
28. _Sketches of the Covenanters_ by J.C. McFEETERS
29. _The Lawfulness and Duty of Separation from Corrupt Ministers and
Churches Explained and Vindicated_ (1744) by JAMES FRASER (of Brae)
30. _Against Romish Rites and Political and Ecclesiastical Tyranny_ (1554)
by JOHN KNOX (Was "A Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God's
Truth in England")
31. _An Admonition to Flee Idolatry, Romanism and All False Worship_
(1554) by JOHN KNOX (Was "A Godly Letter of Warning, or Admonition to
the Faithful in London, Newcastle, and Berwick")
32. _Reformation, Revolution and Romanism: An Appeal to the Scottish
Nobility_ (1558) by JOHN KNOX (Was "An Appellation to the Scottish
Nobility")
33. _The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody_ by
MICHAEL BUSHELL
34. _Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ by JOHN
GIRARDEAU
35. _Our Reformation Heritage_ by JIM DODSON (3 cassettes)
36. _A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ Being
the Last Speeches and Testimonies of those Who Have Suffered for the
Truth in Scotland Since... 1680_ J.H. THOMPSON
37. _The Scots Worthies_ by JOHN HOWIE
38. _Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church_ (1841) by
DAVID SCOTT
39. _The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting_ Compiled by
GREG PRICE
40. _Unity and Uniformity in the Church_ (1881) by THOMAS HOUSTON
41. _The Distinct Denominational Position of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church_ (1860) by JAMES M. WILLSON
42. _Civil Government: An Exposition of Romans 13:1-7_ (1853) by JAMES
M. WILLSON
43. _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ (1843) by JOHN CUNNINGHAM
44. _Statement of the Difference...Particularly on the Power of Civil
Magistrates Respecting Religion, National Reformation, National Churches,
and National Covenants (1871) by THOMAS M'CRIE
45. _John Knox, Oliver Cromwell, God's Law and the Reformation of Civil
Government_ by REG BARROW
46. _Reformation Worship and Separation from Idolatry_ by Reg Barrow
47. _A Warning Against the False and Dangerous Views of James Jordan
Concerning Worship: A Book Review of Kevin Reed's Canterbury Tales_ by
REG BARROW
48. _Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly and Preserving the Purity
of the Christian Religion_ by JOHN CALVIN
49. _Vindiciae Legis: or, A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants,
from the Errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially,
Antinomians_ (1647) by ANTHONY BURGESS
50. _The Two Sons of Oil; or, the Faithful Witness for Magistracy and
Ministry upon a Scriptural Basis_ (1850 edition, reprinted 1995) by
SAMUEL B. WYLIE
I hope that you and some of your writers will take advantage of this offer
and that this offer will help to prove to you that I have your best
interests
at heart (even though I must now testify publicly against your errors). I
pray that God would use these books to unify us in the truth (1 Cor. 1:10; 2
Cor. 13:11), and bring about reconciliation between us. I harbor no
personal ill will toward you and would (and hope to) rejoice in your future
repentance. You and all those at _Credenda/Agenda_ will continue to be in
my prayers.
Sincerely, 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: +1 780 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 780 468 1096
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
P.S. My shortened letter to the editor of Credenda/Agenda, which you
requested above, follows:
Since I have long prayed that you (and the others who write for
_Credenda/Agenda_) would come up to the attainments (especially the
corporate attainments which still bind the moral person of the visible
church in its lawfully constituted form [cf. Calvin's _Institutes_ 4.2.12])
of
the second (or covenanted) Reformation (Phil. 3:16), it is with some
sadness that I read of your attack upon myself and my company (Still
Waters Revival Books) in your "Cave of Adullam" (Vol. 8, No. 4),
titled
"Great Experiments in Telepathy." Furthermore, since you have
rejected
my initial letter to the editor, claiming that it was too long to print, please
let the following synopsis of what has transpired, in the controversy that
you have started between us, suffice to alert your readers as to our
differences.
In an attempt to allow you time to repent of your sin of violating the ninth
commandment in Credenda's "Telepathy" piece we have now contacted
you
by email eight times, and kept all this private. Since you have not repented
and I am now in the process of taking the third step of discipline found in
Matthew 18:15-17 regarding your case, we have now (after eight private
attempts to resolve this situation) decided to defend our good name
publicly. My charges against you (following the first two steps of Matthew
18:15-17) and against all those involved (which are known at this time) in
this act of public slander, along with your responses (or at least a summary
of them, should you fear to have them brought to light and not grant me
permission to publish them) can now be viewed on our web page at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Saul.htm. These two
items (stating my charges and answering your increasingly slanderous
attacks upon me, my company, the church I attend, and the attainments
and leaders of the covenanted Reformation), along with my original letter
to the editor (which you rejected) and the forthcoming (at the time of the
writing of this letter) ruling of our session will also be found in this
free
file on our web page. My letter to "Knox Ring" (which you attacked
in
"Telepathy") exposing John Frame's apostasy will also be attached.
All of
this information will also be available in a forthcoming book titled: _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_.
Your magazine does noes not allow for serious theological interaction
(because of the truncated nature of the items printed) I hope that (barring
your repentance) our differences can be aired in a more suitable form (i.e.
in book length responses). This would help all those following the dispute
and leave a better record for posterity.
Sincerely,
Reg Barrow,
President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
7. *REG BARROW'S FIFTH REPLY TO DOUG WILSON
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>February 13, 1997
>
>Dear Reg,
>
>You certainly have my permission to reprint my letters in your
"book"
>with the proviso that this letter is included in the package.
REG BARROW WRITES:
May 5, 1997
Thank you for your permission to use what you have written.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>I would also encourage you to include (somewhere, *anywhere*) in your
>portion of the book an approximation of HOW MUCH OF FRAME'S BOOK
>YOU HAD READ at the time you publicly approved of his judicial
>excommunication. That would no doubt be as edifying to posterity as the
>rest of this little dust-up.
REG BARROW WRITES:
My position concerning how many pages I had read of Frame's books has
already been explained (in a previous letter) and I do not feel any need to
go over it again. If you understood the truth about the Reformation
regarding worship, close communion, covenanting, etc., you would have
had no problem seeing why I said (originally based on a few *outright
violations* of the second commandment in Frame's book) that Calvin would
have excommunicated Frame.
Also, as previously noted I have started writing a short book detailing why
Calvin would have excommunicated Frame. I will show, in this book (if I
ever get the time to finish it), how many of the other major Reformers, as
well as the creeds and confession of both Reformations would lead us to
the same conclusion concerning Frame's apostasy from Reformation
standards (of communion) in the areas of doctrine, worship and discipline.
This is especially clear in _The Acts of the General Assemblies of the
Church of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649_ (which contains
the acts of the most faithful general assembly since the days of the
Apostles). Rather than rehearsing *all* of this material now (though I will
cover some of it below) I would direct you to Kevin Reed's recent review of
Frame's _Worship in Spirit and Truth_. We offer a free copy of this review
on our web page at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FrameWor.htm
(Those without a connection to the web may request a free copy from Still
Waters Revival Books).
My summary of Kevin's review states:
_Presbyterian Worship: Old and New_ by Kevin Reed (A Review and
Commentary upon _Worship in Spirit and Truth_, a book by John Frame).
Reed shows how Frame has abandoned the Reformation, both scripturally
and confessionally, in regard to worship. He also gives an excellent
summary of historic Reformed views and then contrasts them with the
novel ideas now being touted by Frame. In light of the fact that Frame
teaches at a Presbyterian seminary and is also a Presbyterian pastor [in
the P.C.A.], Reed notes the "distressing implications regarding the
disingenuous nature of confessional subscription within both the churches
and the seminaries." Moreover, Reed comments that "there are also
troubling ramifications concerning the doctrine of scripture, since the
regulative principle rests upon the foundation of the sufficiency of
scripture, with respect to worship." He continues by concluding that
"Frame's book furnishes patent evidence that ecclesiastical discipline
is
lacking in the churches, and that seminary professors can teach heterodox
views with impunity. If Presbyterians took their creed seriously, Mr.
Frame would be removed from both the seminary and the pastorate, and
not allowed to teach. But in the current situation, the majority of pastors,
seminarians, and the people are partners in the crimes of corrupt worship
and confessional laxity. 'A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in
the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their
means; and my people love to have it so.'")
If you compare my article _Calvin, Covenanting and Close Communion: A
Book Review of Alexander and Rufus... by John Anderson (1862)_, (which
is free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CalvinCC.htm
) with
Kevin's review above, you will get a brief outline as to why I contend that
Calvin would have excommunicated Frame for his public promotion of
heresy and idolatry. My review (which I have included below) shows how
Calvin practiced close communion and how the biblical view of this
ordinance is intended to purify the individual, church and state. It refutes
the Popish and paedocommunion heresies (regarding this sacrament), as
well as all views of open communion. It 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.
If you compare the specific violations of the second commandment which
Kevin Reed notes in his review of Frame's book with Calvin's view of
discipline, excommunication and the Lord's Supper in my review of
_Alexander and Rufus_ below, it should not be hard to see why I said the
Calvin would have excommunicated Frame.
Here is my review (note: for non email readers a "*" equals bold
emphasis
and "_" indicates italics):
START REVIEW
_Calvin, Covenanting and Close Communion_
(A book review of _Alexander and Rufus_ by John
Anderson, the first book listed after this review.)
Reviewed by Reg Barrow
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(Rom. 16:17)
John Calvin listed *the doctrine of the sacraments as the third most
important element*, in cataloguing his four major areas of concern,
regarding Christianity and the ecclesiastical Reformation of his day,
writing,
"If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion
has a
standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found
that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend
under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of
Christianity: this is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly
worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be
obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the
name Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the
sacraments and the government of the church..." (_The Necessity of
Reforming the Church_ [Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1544,
reprinted 1995], p. 15).
*Second Reformation thought on church communion* is clearly echoed in
the words of the Reformed Presbytery, in 1876, when they declared,
"In this age of boasted charity, but really 'detestable neutrality and
indifferency,' it is an irksome and painful task, but a duty, thus to bear
testimony against churches, in which are to be found, no doubt, many
precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. But personal piety
never was, nor possibly can be, the condition of fellowship in the visible
church. To think so, and say so, is one of the most popular delusions of the
present day. It puts the supposed pious man, speaking his experience, in
the place of God, speaking his sovereign will in the Bible. This is the
height
of impiety." (_Act, Declaration, and Testimony for the Whole of Our
Covenanted Reformation_, p. 175).
These testimonies remain true today (and maybe even more so), as the
close communion doctrine of the Reformation continues to be much
misunderstood and even more maligned. The false ecumenists (and
*theological egalitarians and pluralists*) of our day continue to batter
away
at this foundation of the Reformation doctrine of the church – while even
many of those that profess to be the heirs of the Reformation are found to
be ignorant regarding this point. Any doctrine of communion which does
not take into account the biblical command to "be of one mind"
(cf. Rom.
15:6, 2 Cor. 13:11, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 2:2, 1 Pet. 3:8) at a corporate,
visible
level is skewed from the beginning. In short, latitudinarian schemes of
open communion (which only include the so-called "essentials" of
the faith)
are schismatic (i.e. *if we do not confuse "schism" with "separation"*).
As Dodson notes, in his Open Letter to an RPCNA Elder, one should not
"confuse 'schism' with 'separation.' They are not the same thing. John
Brown, of Haddington, states, *'that schism in scripture, chiefly, if not
solely, represents alienation of affection, and disagreement among those
who continue the same joint attendance on the ordinances of the gospel,'* 1
Cor. 12:25; 1:10. Augustine said, 'It is not a different faith makes
schismatics, but a broken society of communion.' In no place, in the Bible,
does the word 'schism' appear to signify 'visible separation.' *Error in
doctrine, corruption in worship and tyranny in discipline, render
separation unavoidable, to escape the sin of schism*. Your conception of
what constitutes 'schism' is that of Rome. If 'schism' is 'separation;' and
'There is no precedent for schism [re: separation] in the Bible;' then, on
what basis did Protestants leave Rome? Every Reformer owned that Rome
is, in some sense, a Church of Christ. After all, that man of sin is seated
in
the 'temple of God,' as they taught."
Schismatic schemes promoting open communion (of which
*paedocommunion* is presently at the head), attempt to "*dumb
down*"
(to a greater or lesser degree) the requirements for partaking at the Lord's
table. Loose and latitudinarian schemes of communion lead to churches
that stand for little – or nothing – over time; while a Scripturally
regulated
close communion tends to the exact opposite end. Anderson makes this
very point in his preface to this book, "*corruption is the native
consequence of latitudinarian schemes, (while) scriptural order in
sacramental communion tends to make the visible church a heaven on
earth to the faithful, terrible as an army with banners to her enemies, and
to her King and Head for a name, for a praise and for glory*."
If you love the purity and peace of Christ's church and agree with the
words of John Calvin, when he wrote, "*We are only contending about the
true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not
only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also
especially of doctrine*" (_Institutes_, 4.2.12), then you will find a
meaty
meal in _Alexander and Rufus_ – for the author not only deals with the
larger questions related to church communion, but also weaves into the
fabric of this book many specific threads relating to practical applications
and doctrinal controversies. Moreover, notwithstanding a couple of
peculiar doctrinal foibles originating from the Seceder camp, in opposition
to the Covenanters (especially regarding civil government and some points
of the law), a plethora of subjects relative to the Reformed view of
communion, church union, testimony-bearing, etc., are all dealt with here –
and these points are given the kind of attention (along with Scriptural and
historical accuracy) that will be greatly appreciated among those familiar
with the precise views of the "old dissenters" of Scottish origin.
Additionally, Anderson is not shy about proclaiming the fact that
*Scripture teaches that anti-Calvinists (i.e. Romanists, Pelagians,
Arminians,
Amyraldians, etc.), anti-paedobaptists, anti-regulativists, and a host of
others that deny the apostolic faith (at points related to the doctrine,
worship, government and discipline of the church), should be barred from
the table of the Lord* (arguing a fortiori from Math. 5:23-24); but, he is
also careful to distinguish between the Popish and Prelatical views of
excommunication (which equate excommunication with a sentence to hell)
and the Calvinistic view which recognizes that those who are among the
elect can at times come under the sentence of excommunication. For
example, Greg Price has noted (in a forthcoming book on the visible church
and separation) that "Calvin distinguishes between *anathema and
excommunication*. The former sentences one to hell, the latter puts one
outside the fellowship of the church" (cf. Calvin's _Institutes_
4.12.10).
Samuel Rutherford makes the same distinction in his _Survey of the
Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_ (1658) commenting on 1 Cor.
16:22 and 1 Cor. 5, as does James Fraser of Brae, on page 210, in _The
Lawfulness and Duty or Separation from Corrupt Ministers and Churches_
(1744).
It is also not without significance that Anderson's contendings can be seen
to be nothing more than classic second Reformation teaching regarding
fencing the Lord's table. Samuel Rutherford comments,
"Because the Churches take not care, that Ministers be savoury and
gracious; from Steermen all Apostasie and rottenness begin. O if the Lord
would arise and purge his House in Scotland! As for Church-members, they
ought to be holy; and though all baptized be actu primo members, yet such
as remain habitually ignorant after admonition, are to be cast out, and
though they be not cast out certainly, as paralytick or rottened members
cannot discharge the functions of life: So those that are scandalous,
ignorant, malignant, unsound in faith, lose their rights of Suffrages in
election of Officers, and are to be debarred from the Seals. Nor can we
defend our sinful practise in this: it were our wisdom to repent of our
taking in the Malignant party, who shed the blood of the people of God,
and obstructed the work of God, into places of Trust in the Church State,
and the Army, contrary to our Covenants, they continuing still Enemies"
(_Survey of the Survey..._, p. 373).
This is confirmed throughout _The Acts of the General Assemblies of the
Church of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_. Here
is a *partial list of offences recorded in _The Acts_ for which people were
disciplined*: innovations in worship; neglecting daily family worship;
Sabbath breaking; covenant refusing, covenant breaking and speaking
against the national covenants; Arminianism; celebrating man-ordained
holydays (e.g. Christmass); familiar fellowship with those excommunicated;
promoting, countenancing, hearing or accepting false church government
and unlawful ministers (whether Popish, Episcopal or sectarian
[Independent]); slander; contumacy, etc.
Furthermore, recognizing Calvin's (biblical) distinctions concerning the
*visible church* (distinguishing between the visible church as to *essence*
and the visible church as to *constitution*, cf. Calvin's _Institutes_
4.2.12),
Anderson writes:
"The catholic church comprehends all that profess the true religion.
There
is a lawful and necessary division of it into sections in respect of local
situation. *But when a number of people, bearing the Christian name,
combine together as a distinct society, for the purpose of maintaining and
propagating doctrines and practices, which, instead of belonging to the true
religion, are contrary to it; they ought not, considered as such a
combination, to be called a lawful section of the catholic church* (i.e.
constitutionally, according to their public character and profession–RB). It
is not denied, that they belong to the catholic church (in as far as they,
as
individuals, profess the truth–RB); but it is denied, that there ought to be
any such section or division in it. **Thus, there ought to be no section of
the catholic church, having for the peculiar end of its distinct
subsistence,
the support of episcopal hierarchy, unknown in the Scripture, of the
propagation of antipaedobaptism, or of anti-scriptural doctrine, in
opposition to that of God's election, redemption, effectual calling and the
conservation of his people, as delivered in the scripture; or for the
support
of ways and means of divine worship not found in Scripture. If the catholic
visible church were brought to a suitable discharge of her duty, she would
abolish all such sections**. But no society ought to be called such an
unlawful section, while it can be shown that it subsists as a separate
society for no other end, than for the maintaining of something in the
doctrine, worship or government of the church which belongs to the
Christian religion as delivered in the word of God, or for exhibiting a
testimony against prevailing errors and corruptions which the scripture
requires the catholic church to condemn. Such a profession of any party of
Christians is no sectarian profession; and a union with them is not a
sectarian, but properly a Christian union; and, being cordial and sincere,
is
a union in Christ; and communion upon the ground of this union is truly
Christian communion. *On the other hand, however much of our holy
religion any body of Christians hold in common with others, and however
many of them we may charitably judge to be saints, yet while their
distinguishing profession is contrary to the word of God, communion with
them, as a body so distinguished, is sectarian communion; as it implies a
union with them in that which ought to be rejected by the whole catholic*
church" (pp. 10-11).
Commenting on "Alexander's" *latitudinarian contention that Calvin
would
have tolerated Arminians and idolaters at the Lord's table* (which
together comprise the two main areas of Calvin's concern for ecclesiastical
Reformation, as cited at the head of this review), "Rufus"
replies,
"Considering that the Arminian scheme includes some of the most
pernicious errors of Popery, how reproachful it is to the memory of Calvin,
to call such a base proposal, his plan revived and prosecuted? Did Mr.
Calvin ever speak of independent churches in the one church of Christ? Or
of promoting union, by holding sacramental communion with the professed
teachers of false doctrine, as every Arminian teacher is, or with the
professed defenders of superstition in the worship of God? By no means"
(_Alexander and Rufus_, p. 159).
Furthermore, it is a well documented fact that *the Genevan Presbytery of
Calvin's day, in 1536, sought to excommunicate anyone who would not
swear an oath to uphold the Reformed doctrine as it was set forth in their
_Confession of Faith_*.
T.H.L. Parker writes,
"Since the evangelical faith had only recently been preached in the
city,
and there were still many Romanists, *the ministers also urged
excommunication on the grounds of failure to confess the faith*. The
Confession of faith, which all the citizens and inhabitants of Geneva...
must
promise to keep and to hold had been presented to the Council on 10
November 1536. Let the members of the Council be the first to subscribe
and then the citizens, 'in order to recognize those in harmony with the
Gospel and those loving rather to be of the kingdom of the pope than of the
kingdom of Jesus Christ.' *Those who would not subscribe were to be
excommunicated*" (_John Calvin: A Biography_, p. 63, emphases added).
Moreover, those who would not submit to "Calvin's" close communion
were
not only proceeded against with *negative ecclesiastical sanctions*, but
they came under *negative civil sanctions* also.
Mike Wagner, in _Up From Reconstructionism", states,
"*John Calvin, during the First Reformation, showed that he supported
the
concept of Covenanted Reformation by requiring all the residents of
Geneva to take an oath in support of the Reformation*. The 'Register of the
Council of 24' of Geneva notes as follows:
12 November 1537. It was reported that yesterday the people who had
not yet made their oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by
street; whilst many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the
German quarter. *It was decided that they should be commanded to leave
the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation*" (Scribner,
Bob
and Pamela Johnston. 1993. _The Reformation in Germany and
Switzerland_, Cambridge University Press, p. 138).
Now, it should be obvious to those who know the commandments of God
that **an honest man cannot swear an oath to uphold a confession that he
does not believe. To do so, even if the man disagrees with only one point of
the confession, is to violate both the third and ninth commandments** –
and to play the Jesuit (see the _Westminster Larger Catechism_ on the
duties required and the sins forbidden concerning the third and ninth
commandments; these can be found as questions and answers 112, 113,
144, and 145). Such false swearing is also, by definition, perjury (I wonder
how many perjured officers reside in Presbyterian and Reformed churches
today?). To encourage others to so swear is subornation to perjury. These
are all serious sins in themselves and all worthy of excommunication and
civil penalties – as the Genevan Reformers rightly taught and practiced.
In _Alexander and Rufus_ *close communion is also shown (as above) to be
God's ordained method of promoting truth, unity and Reformation*; not
destroying it, as the ignorant and scandalous claim,
The term sectarian, the favorite watch-word of this author, tends to divert
the attention from the matter in dispute. The question is, whether a
church's refusing to have sacramental communion with such as openly
avow their opposition to one or more articles of her scriptural profession
has such effects as are now mentioned? Does this refusal break up the
unity of the church at large? By no means. *The truths of God's word
constitute the bond of unity in the catholic church; so far as they are
publicly professed and preserved in the doctrine, worship, and
government of the several particular churches. Hence it is evident, that
what breaks up the peace of the catholic church, is not the faithfulness of
particular churches in refusing, but their laxness in granting sacramental
communion to the avowed opposers of undoubted truths of God's word, as
exhibited in the public profession of any of the churches, every instance of
this laxness tending to weaken the bond of their union*. Does refusing
sacramental communion with the avowed opposers of the truths of God,
publicly professed by a particular church, chill the warmth of love to the
catholic church? surely no: for it is manifestly the interest of the
catholic
church that every particular church should hold these truths in her public
profession, and not tolerate opposition to them in her communion. Hence it
must give sincere pleasure to a lover of the catholic church to see a
particular church uniformly faithful in refusing church communion to open
opposers of any one of the truths of God contained in her public
profession... Does the faithfulness of a particular church, in refusing to
have
sacramental communion with the open opposers of any article of her
scriptural profession, hinder her from using any means appointed in the
word of God for promoting his spiritual kingdom? This is so far from being
the case, that this refusal is supposed and implied in the use of several
proper means for that end; such as, a church's contending for the whole
truth exhibited in her public profession; the judicial assertion of the
truths
of God's word, and the judicial condemnation of the contrary errors;
committing the word to faithful men, who will teach others the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, according to the public profession or testimony
of the church, in due subordination to the holy scriptures; recognising the
solemn engagements, which the church has come under *to preserve
whatever measure of reformation has been attained. These means, which
are certainly appointed in the word of God, cannot be sincerely used by
any particular church, unless she be careful, that such as are avowed and
obstinate opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, may not be
received into, or continued in her communion*. Whilst these means, of our
Lord's appointment, are willfully neglected, we have little ground to expect
the Divine blessing on such other means as men may pretend, to use for
the advancement of his spiritual kingdom (pp. 92-93, emphases added).
To see how closely this mirrors Calvin's teaching, see pages 126 to 135 in
_The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ (Presbyterian Heritage
Publications' edition).
Anderson also does an excellent job concerning: Calvin's plan for promoting
a union among the churches (p. 151ff.); the place of confessions and
confessional subscription (pp. 85, 179); covenanting (pp. 358-384);
separation (pp. 92, 132); worship (pp. 10-13, 87, 107, 142, 155, 161-164,
456ff., etc.); the marks of the church (p. 132ff.); uniformity (pp. 7, 103,
168, 205); the Westminster Assembly (p. 169ff); the Dutch views (p. 158f.);
distinctions between essentials and non-essentials (p. 168); the so-called
"glorious revolution" of 1688 (p. 263); the French Reformed
churches (p.
156); the covenanted Reformation (p. 253); discipline (p. 103); attainments
(pp. 11, 93, 137, 162ff., 206, etc.); the government of the church (p. 123);
the so-called "Apostle's creed" (pp. 100-104); the Belgic
Confession (pp.
135-138); councils in the ancient church (p. 104); the Donatists (p. 112);
the forsaking of sin, false doctrine, and false teachers (pp. 92, 132);
occasional hearing (p. 83); Owen against open communion (p. 207);
sectarianism (p. 92); and much, much more.
On the topic of church and sacramental communion you are unlikely to
find many other books with as much solid information. Recommended for
advanced study. Indexed, 518 pages.
_Alexander and Rufus_ is a "rare bound photocopy" and sells for
$19.99
(US funds) or for $39.00 (US funds) as a "hardcover rare
bound photocopy."
This is Reformation History Notes number 2, issued Dec. 7, 1996.
END REVIEW
Though I do not want to steal all my thunder from the forthcoming book
(detailing why Calvin would have excommunicated Frame), the reader may
want to consider that one would have to be either absolutely ignorant of
Calvin's position (on discipline, the Lord's supper, worship, etc.) or
purposely misleading people to dispute the fact that "Eire's _War
Against
the Idols_ proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Calvin would have
excommunicated both Frame and Jordan without a second thought - given
the idolatrous nature of their beliefs regarding public worship," as I
wrote
on Knox Ring.
Eire, in _War Against the Idols_ shows how tenaciously Calvin held to and
defended the regulative principle of worship, as well as separation from
those who deviated from it:
"Because Calvin sees human nature as inherently prone to idolatry, he
constantly warns that it is dangerous to accept even the most insignificant
form of material worship in the Church, for "men's folly" cannot
restrain
itself from falling headlong into superstitious rites (_Institutes
1.11.3)...
Calvin takes into account... that all impure worship not only displeases
God,
but goes to Satan as well. Those who become embroiled in idolatry, he
points out, are handing themselves over to the devil, because the ultimate
result of false worship is abandonment by God:
'As long as we keep this rule (that one conform to the pure doctrine of
God), we know that God will approve the worship that is rendered by us;
but if we add any of our fantasies or borrow anything from men,
everything will be perverted and corrupted. And then the devil will be
placed in charge of everything we do' (_Sermons on Deuteronomy_,
_Corpus Reformatorum (CR)_ 28.715; _Petit Traicte_, _CR_ 6.548).
The practical implications of Calvin's warnings about the dangers of
idolatry are significant. Since idolatry is a fertile danger, **the true
Christian must maintain a strict separation from all kinds of misdirected
worship**" (pp. 225, 227, 228, emphasis added).
The implications of idolatrous worship on a societal scale and the
centrality
of biblically regulated worship in the Calvinist tradition are also noted by
Eire.
Though Eire's comments focus primarily on the civil ramifications of
idolatry, the application to those ecclesiastical tyrants (such as Frame) --
who destroy true Christian liberty (i.e. that liberty which only comes from
obedience to Christ's commands [cf. _Westminster Larger Catechism_ 108-
110]; a liberty which includes a hearty opposition to all worship which
imposes or promotes the non-Scriptural commandments of men [cf.
_Westminster Confession of Faith_ 20:2]) -- can easily and legitimately be
made. For one such contemporary application regarding our duty to attend
and promote only those visible churches who are faithful (i.e. duly
constituted, avoiding public idolatry, etc.) and separate and testify
against
the harlot daughters of the Romish whore, see: _Why the PCA is Not a Duly
Constituted Church and Why Faithful Christians Should Separate from this
Corrupted "Communion"_ by Larry Birger, free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PCAbad.htm.
An
ecclesiastical antichrist (constitutionally) is at least as dangerous as a
civil
anitchrist (constitutionally). Christians must be at war against idolatry
and
revolt against its promoters and practitioners (whether civil or
ecclesiastical), or else, practically speaking, they will find themselves at
war with Christ and His commands. Eire writes,
"What I propose, against Skinner and Walzer, is that any definition of
Calvinism needs to take theology into account as a real motivating force,
especially as a vision of reality that becomes an ideology, a blueprint for
behavior on the individual and social level. In regards to theories of
resistance, the issue of idolatry assumes central importance. Calvinists
resorted to revolution not just as a way of ensuring their survival solely
for its own sake, but rather to promote a new kind of social and political
vision based on certain theological principles. 'Right worship' and 'true
belief' are the heart of their ideology. Calvinists struggled not just
against
'tyrants' in a strictly political sense, but also, very clearly, against
'idolaters.' What made their 'tyrants' deserving of resistance is not just
political or social oppression, but rather the perversion of religion. When
a
ruler disobeys the First Table of the Law, when he breaks the covenant
with God for pure worship, then and only then is revolution fully justified:
This is what Calvinist theorists never tired of repeating" (_War
Against the
Idols_, pp. 308-309).
For those interested in the "revolutionary" thought of John Calvin
as it was
worked out in practice, see Robert Kingdon's _Geneva and the Coming of
the Wars of Religion in France 1555-1563_. That Frame's book would have
never been allowed to be published in Geneva can be seen from consulting
pages 46 and 96-98.
To put a little sharper point on our discussion of worship, Calvin's
thoughts
on the type of "human traditions" (i.e. those actions introduced
into the
public worship of God without basis in the Word of God) which Frame
would introduce into public worship (as noted throughout his book
_Worship in Spirit and Truth_) can be seen in the comments below (as
found in section 17 of the _Geneva Confession of 1536_). Calvin drew up
this confession, in the same year as the first edition of the _Institutes_,
to
assist in fencing the Lord's table. Remember, as is shown in my review of
_Alexander and Rufus_ above, those who would not swear to this
Confession were not only to be *excommunicated*, but also "*commanded
to leave the city*."
Section 17 of the Genevan Confession reads,
"17. HUMAN TRADITIONS
The ordinances that are necessary for the internal discipline of the
Church, and belong solely to the maintenance of peace, honesty and good
order in the assembly of Christians, *we do not hold to be human traditions
at all*, in as much as they are comprised under the general command of
Paul, where he desires that all be done among them decently and in order.
**But all laws and regulations made binding on conscience which oblige the
faithful to things not commanded by God, or establish another service of
God than that which he demands, thus tending to destroy Christian liberty,
we condemn as perverse doctrines of Satan, in view of our Lord's
declaration that he is honoured in vain by doctrines that are the
commandment of men.** It is in this estimation that we hold pilgrimages,
monasteries, distinctions of foods, prohibition of marriage, confessions and
other like things."
(John Calvin, "Confession of Faith Which All the Citizens and
Inhabitants of
Geneva and the Subjects of the Country Must Promise to Keep and Hold
[1536]," _Corpus Reformatorum_, X/I ["Calvini opera quae supersunt
omnia"], as translated [from the French] and cited in _Calvin:
Theological
Treatises_, [The Westminster Press, 1954], pp. 30-31, emphases added).
In the emphasized sections above we clearly see the regulative principle of
worship stated and defended in Calvin's words, "laws and regulations
made
binding on conscience which oblige the faithful to things not commanded
by God, or establish another service of God than that which he
demands,"
and "that he (God--RB) is honoured in vain by doctrines that are the
commandment of men." In this section of the _Geneva Confession_ Calvin
not only twice incorporates words often used in the classic summary of the
regulative principle, repudiating "things not commanded by God"
and
enjoining only "that which he demands;" he also calls all contrary
teaching
the "perverse doctrines of Satan." It is the denial of the
regulative principle
of worship, at its most foundational points, which is one the primary
threads running throughout Frame's new book on worship (again see Kevin
Reed's review of Frame's book titled _Presbyterian Worship: Old and New_,
free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FrameWor.htm
, for
more specifics on Frames denial of the regulative principle).
Those (like Frame) who repudiate the Calvinistic
Presbyterian/Reformed/Puritan understanding of the regulative principle
are described by R.L. Dabney below, in his Review of Girardeau's
_Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church_,
"The framework of his argument is this: it begins with that vital truth
which no Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our
principles. The man who contests this first premise had better set out at
once for Rome: God is to be worshipped only in the ways appointed in His
Word. Every act of public cultus not positively enjoined by Him is thereby
forbidden. Christ and His apostles ordained the musical worship of the New
Dispensation without any sort of musical instrument, enjoining only the
singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Hence such instruments are
excluded from Christian worship. Such has been the creed of all churches,
and in all ages, except for the Popish communion after it had reached the
nadir of its corruption at the end of the thirteenth century, and of its
prelatic imitators."
As Dabney notes, those who try to repudiate the Scriptural Regulative
principle of worship have already set out for Rome, in principle (whether
they recognize it our not); but most (in the first few generations) usually
adopt the milder forms of "Romish," man-ordained worship -- as
they are
(and have been) practiced among the Lutherans and Episcopalians
(including the use of musical instruments, man-made hymns, etc.). The
wild extravagances of the Anabaptists (which find expression in a much
muted form among the modern Charismatics) are also another man-
ordained option with which Satan tempts many, and Frame seems to favor
this "free-flowing" direction in worship at most points (cf.
_Worship in
Spirit and Truth_ pp. 145-154). Interestingly, as Greg Price points out in
appendix A below, the Anabaptists were among the first groups to begin to
introduce man-made hymns into public worship during the days of the
Reformation.
I have long said: If someone tries to argue with you against the regulative
principle of worship it is always a good idea to ask them what they are
going to put in its place (making sure that they provide Scriptural proof
for
all those "liberties" and ceremonies which they conjure up out of
their own
brains). Also ask them: By what standard are you binding my conscience to
your forms and ideas regarding worship? Where does God institute this?
Or, are you just making this up yourself? Because for those who are
familiar with the humanistic systems that have already developed in
opposition to the Scriptural law of worship, it will soon be apparent
"that
there is nothing new under the sun." These "new" ideas
regarding worship
vary little (in practice), and not at all (in principle), with the ideas set
forth
in opposition to the Reformers throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. There is no neutrality! You are going to buy into a system
(whether you know it or not); and the system you buy into is guaranteed
*not* to be new (at the level of principle). You will either worship God
according to His appointment or you will do so at the behest of men (Matt.
15:9).
That Calvin and Frame hold to diametrically opposed views on worship is
obvious to those familiar with both authors. One clear example of a specific
point of divergence between Calvin and Frame can be seen in their views
of the application of the regulative principle as it comes to bear on the
question of the use of musical instruments in public worship (though
application to Frame concerning the differences between his and Calvin's
conception of worship could fill a book in and of themselves). This one
specific example of Frame's violation of the regulative principle (i.e. the
second commandment) is compared below with Calvin's view. I am
deliberately choosing an area that seems insignificant to most Christian's
today (instrumental music) to make this point, for we have seen (in Eire
above) that Calvin "constantly warns that it is dangerous to accept
even
the most insignificant form of material worship in the Church." I am
choosing the instruments question to illustrate Frame's rejection of the
regulative principle because the most important point to remember is not
found in the actual practice which I will note (though it is a sin to use
instruments in public worship), but in the prior abandonment of the
regulative principle which must first take place before this idolatrous
practice can performed. I have often said that we (as Protestants) would
no more use instruments in worship than we would take a sheep or goat
up to the front of our meeting house and slaughter it, as if that had some
religious significance for today. Both instrument music and animal sacrifice
were ordained parts of worship originating in the now abrogated Old
Testament ceremonial law. If you don't think this is an accurate statement
ask yourself this question: Were musical instruments part of the
ceremonial or moral law? -- and why? This is why the use of musical
instruments in public worship was often called "the badge of
Popery" by
the Reformers (cf. R.J. George's _The Badge of Popery: Musical Instruments
in Public Worship_). It was also considered a denial of the work of Christ
(bringing back those ceremonial shadows which disappeared in the light of
the work of Christ).
But, now, let's compare Calvin and Frame.
Girardeau (_Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_, pp.
63, 64) summarizes Calvin's view on instruments in public worship in this
way,
"To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery," says Calvin,
"unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law and of the
service
of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not
now to be used in public thanksgiving." (Calvin on Ps. lxxi. 22).He
says
again: "With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have
formerly
observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark,
that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of
instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train
his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such
rudiments until the coming of Christ. But now, when the clear light of the
gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law and taught us that God is to
be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part
to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own
time" (Calvin on Ps. lxxxi. 3). He further observes: "We are to
remember
that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward
services, which were only necessary to help forward a people as yet weak
and rude in knowledge in the spiritual worship of God. A difference is to
be observed in this respect between his people under the Old and under
the New Testament; for now that Christ has appeared, and the church has
reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the gospel should we
introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation. From this it appears
that the Papists, as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, in employing
instrumental music cannot be said so much to imitate the practice of God's
ancient people as to ape it in a senseless and absurd manner, exhibiting a
silly delight in that worship of the Old Testament which was figurative and
terminated with the gospel (Calvin on Ps. xcii. 1)"
Frame writes,
"Many of the same people who restrict song in worship to the Psalms
disallow the use of instruments, choirs and musical solos in worship. On the
surface, this second issue does not seem to pertain to the regulative
principle. There are many commands in Scripture to use instruments in
worship (e.g., Pss. 68:24-25; 98:4-6; 149:3; 150:1-6). However, some have
argued that instruments and choirs were part of the distinctive worship of
the Old Testament temple, and that since the temple worship has passed
away in Christ, there is no warrant for the use of instruments and choirs in
the church today" (_Worship in Spirit and Truth_, p. 127).
Frame then produces seven arguments which he thinks justifies the use of
musical instruments in public worship -- all which Calvin would have
opposed -- and all which prove that Frame is not at all familiar with the
many times these very questions have been answered in the body of
Presbyterian and Puritan literature (cf. James Glasgow's _Heart and Voice:
Instruments in Christian Worship Not Authorized_ and Begg's _Anarchy in
Worship_). Frame also believes that "we are free to use instrumental
music, even without words," to cover other distracting noises during
worship (p. 130). Furthermore, as worship leader in his congregation he
encourages individuals in the congregation "to clap, whistle, tap
tambourines, or otherwise use their gifts to enhance worship" (p. 148).
He
also plays instrumental solos, but would in principle "like to see more
instrumentalists" than just himself (p. 148). Finally, as if to totally
thumb
his nose at the Reformers and the regulative principle (and embrace an
outright popish heresy), Frame states that he does "not believe that we
are
limited to the instruments mentioned in Scripture, but in considering how
to set hymns to music, the biblical instrumentation can give us some
clues."
If this is not the wholesale repudiation of the regulative principle (just
on
this one point) then lookout, because "bo-bo the clown" may soon
appear in
a pulpit near you -- whistles, tambourines and all.
Even given what we have seen thus far, concerning Calvin's views
regarding worship and excommunication, I do not think that there is any
question as to what would have happened to Mr. Frame if he had tried to
peddle his nonsense in one of the Genevan Churches. In fact, when I
picture the Libertines with swords in hand, ready to kill Calvin if he would
not serve them the Lord's supper -- and Calvin risking his life in standing
up to them, in fencing the Lord's table, until they backed away (and by
God's grace left him unharmed) -- and compare that with the circus-like
atmosphere that Frame seeks to conjure up each Lord's Day (as described
in his book on pages 145-154) during what he calls "worship"
services: I
can only wonder at the inroads that the ecclesiastical beast has made in
our day. Furthermore, that others would defend such blatant idolatry is
staggering apostasy. But this is the fruit of the anti-regulativist
mentality,
not a nation-changing church, indomitable, an army "terrible with
banners;" but an entertainment-filled carnival, a vanity fair, apostasy
cloaked in pious language and "righteous" rhetoric, assuring
itself that this
is real progress (for we certainly know better than those old Reformers).
Additionally, similar proofs (exhibiting Frame's rejection of the regulative
principle) could be offered contra Frame's declarations against exclusive
Psalmody (pp. 123-127); for drama (pp. 92-93), dancing (pp. 130-132, cf.
_The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, pp. 150-151, in regard to
dancing), children's church (p. 150), grape juice at the Lord's table (p.
151),
non-elders speaking as a voice of one in the congregation during worship
(p. 106); and a host of other errors (many more serious) which are
extensions of Frame's rejection of the Presbyterian/Puritan view of the
regulative principle.
Now that we have noted a few of the differences between Calvin and
Frame (and Frame's rejection of the classical Protestant or Calvinistic
position on worship) we can look at how the _Geneva Confession_ which
Calvin wrote counsels us to deals with men like Frame.
In conjunction with section 17 of the _Geneva Confession of Faith_, section
19 on "Excommunication" states,
"19. EXCOMMUNICATION
Because there are always some who hold God and his Word in contempt,
who take account of neither injunction, exhortation nor remonstrance, thus
requiring greater chastisement, we hold the discipline of excommunication
to be a thing holy and salutary among the faithful, since truly it was
instituted by our Lord with good reason. This is in order that the wicked
should not by their damnable conduct corrupt the good and dishonour our
Lord, and that though proud they may turn to penitence. Therefore we
believe that it is expedient according to the ordinance of God that all
manifest *idolaters,* blasphemers, murderers, thieves, lewd persons, *false
witnesses,* sedition-mongers, quarrellers, those guilty of defamation or
assault, drunkards, dissolute livers, when they have been duly admonished
and *if they do not make amendment, be separated from the communion
of the faithful until their repentance is known*" (John Calvin,
"Confession
of Faith Which All the Citizens and Inhabitants of Geneva and the Subjects
of the Country Must Promise to Keep and Hold [1536]," _Corpus
Reformatorum_, X/I ["Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia"], as
translated
[from the French] and cited in _Calvin: Theological Treatises_, [The
Westminster Press, 1954], p. 7, emphases added).
Notice that *idolaters* head the list of those who should be "be
separated
from the communion of the faithful until their repentance is known."
Calvin, Knox and the bulk of the reformers considered **idolatry to be
committed wherever and whenever the regulative principle was not
followed**. In their opinion you will either worship God according to His
appointment (as espoused in the regulative principle which Frame seeks to
overturn) or you will do so at the behest of men (Matt. 15:9, cf. Kevin
Reed's _Biblical Worship_, FREE at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm
for
proof). With this in mind numerous specific charges of idolatry (some
already noted above) could be brought against Frame based on what he
has written in his book. These charges (based on transgressions of the
second commandment) prove that Frame would have been considered an
idolater, according to Calvin and most other Reformers, and thus
excommunicated.
One of the many examples verifying Calvin's hatred for Frame's view of
worship can be seen in his comments on Acts 7:44. Calvin writes,
"This is the first mark whereby the holy Spirit doth distinguish all
bastardly and corrupt worshipping from the true and sincere worship. Yea,
(to speak more briefly,) the first difference between true worship and
idolatry is this: when the godly take in hand nothing but that which is
agreeable to the Word of God, but the other think all that lawful which
pleaseth themselves, and so they count their own will a law; *whereas God
alloweth nothing but that which he himself hath appointed*" (emphasis
added to highlight the regulative principle).
Calvin is even more pointed regarding his denunciation of idolatry and
idolaters (i.e. those who do not worship God in the way "which he
demands") in his "First Sermon, on Psalm 16:4" in _Come Out
From Among
Them: The "Anti-Nicodemite" Writings of John Calvin_ (Protestant
Heritage
Publications, forthcoming).
"So, let us hold to this rule, that *all human inventions* which are
set up to
corrupt the simple purity of the word of God, and to undo the worship
which *he demands and approves*, are true sacrileges, in which the
Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God, and trampling
his honour underfoot" (p. 141, emphases added).
It should be clear by now that anyone who repudiates the regulative
principle (which is simply the teaching and application of the second
commandment), as Frame does in his book _Worship in Spirit and Truth_,
would have been excommunicated from the Genevan church of Calvin's
day.
However, I do openly admit that Calvin was, at times, inconsistent in his
*application of some* of the biblical principles he was beginning to glimpse
concerning worship, discipline and separation. For example, his great love
for the unity of the church (and his keen perception of the threat posed by
Romanism and the Anabaptist scourge) sometimes seemed to cloud his
vision and cause him to be far too lenient towards the idolatry and error
practised by the Lutherans. Such pragmatism is unbecoming a Christian no
matter how eminent for gifts and testimony (Gal. 2:11). This is especially
evident when we compare the sometimes contradictory advice that Calvin
gave concerning the "Nicodemites" (and their separation from Rome)
with
his advice to the English Calvinists fleeing Bloody Mary, who had settled in
Lutheran Germany (and who asked his counsel concerning separation from
some of the "lesser" Lutheran forms of idolatry). This is also
illustrated in
Calvin's unwillingness to openly oppose Luther (by name, while Luther
was alive) and his particular view of the Lord's Supper, though he often
condemned the Popish Mass. After Luther's death Calvin began (or better
was forced into) responding to Lutheran attacks directed against him on
this very point. At one point in 1556, dealing with this controversy, Calvin
wrote to Bullinger complaining that "the Lutherans have conspired to
snow
us under with a mass of polemical pamphlets." Dealing with issues like
this
we see some of the lingering negative effects of the widespread darkness
from which the earlier Reformers were just extracting themselves, and
how a much clearer testimony against error and idolatry arose during the
covenanted Reformation (of the seventeenth century). Samuel Rutherford
is a case in point when he states,
"At the conference of Wittingberge, an. 1529, where were present
Capito,
Bucerus, Musculus, and other grave Divines of higher Germany; on the
other side, Luther, Melanthon, Pomeranus, Cruciger, in which Luther said
brethren, 'If ye teach and believe that the true body and true blood of the
Lord is exhibited in the Supper, & quod hee perceptio vere fiat, and
that
truely or really there is a receiving thereof, we agree as brethren;' **but
the truth is, there were contrary faiths touching the presence of Christs
body and blood in the Sacrament; and therefor I humbly conceive all such
Generall confessions as must be a coat to cover two contrary faiths, is but
a
daubing of the matter with untempered mortar**; much dealing like this
was in the Councell of Trent, in which neither Papist not Protestant was
condemned; and yet the truth suffered; I speake not this as if each side
could exactly know every lich and veine of the controversie, for we
'prophesie but in part,' but to shew ***I cannot but abominate truth and
falsehood, patched up in one confession of faith***" (original spelling
retained, _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_,
[1649], p. 67, emphases added).
Furthermore, we know from various postmillennial Scriptures that we can
expect even greater attainments in the future (in the moral person of the
duly constituted visible church) during the millennium (Isa. 2:2-5), and
that like the sanctification of individuals, the church is ultimately
growing
(Eph. 4:13) and her public testimony will one day be unified (Zech. 14:7-9)
and cover the whole earth (Isa. 11:9).
I should also explain that it is never my intent to sanction positively the
errors of even the greatest of Christian teachers. Our *final authority*
always remains the Scriptures, but because of the nature of this paper
(discussing Classical Protestantism and my previous comments related to
Calvin), much recourse, of necessity, must be made to history. We are to
approbate the *faithful* contendings of our forefathers (Jer. 6:16, 1 Cor.
11:1, Phil. 3:17), but never to follow them in any form of dissimulation or
error. As Steele notes, "only the *faithful* contendings of the martyrs
of
Jesus demand our approbation and imitation" (_A Concise History of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church from the Middle of the Sixteenth Century
and of the Reformed Presbytery from 1840 Till the Present Time_, p. 14,
emphasis in the original). The Reformed Presbytery concurs, in their
explanation of our fifth term of communion, "it is only to such of them
as
truly deserve the characteristic epithets of SCRIPTURAL AND FAITHFUL,
that we require the assent of our church members" (_An Explanation and
Defence of the Terms of Communion Adopted by the Community of
Dissenters..._, p. 189, emphasis in the original).
Thus, here, in regard to my comments about Calvin and Frame, I consider
Calvin's testimony concerning the Nicodemites to have been in accord with
Scripture -- and worthy of our imitation -- and *some* of his testimony
regarding the Lutherans to have been faulty -- and therefore not worthy
of our imitation.
Moreover, it is good to keep in mind that Calvin was relatively mild-
mannered in comparison with Knox (who I think was more consistent on
the questions we are addressing). He said,
START QUOTE
"Moses, the mouth of God to the Israelites, spoke as follows: "If
thy
brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of
thy own bosom, or thy neighbour whom thou lovest as thy own life, shall
privily solicit thee, saying, 'Let us go serve other gods, which thou hast
not
known,' etc., obey him not, hear him not, neither yet let thy eye spare him;
be not merciful unto him, nor hide him not; but utterly slay him. Let thy
hand be first upon him, that such one may be slain. And then the hands of
the whole people stone him with stones that he may die," etc. (Deut.
13:6-
18). And so likewise he commands to be done with a whole city, if the
indwellers thereof turn back to idolatry; adding also that the whole city,
and the spoil of the same, should be burnt, and that no portion thereof
should be saved; neither yet that the city should be re-edified or built
again for ever, because it was accursed of God.
Here is a plain declaration, what God requires of them that will continue in
league with him; and what he has damned by his express word (Ex. 20).
And do we esteem, beloved brethren, that the immutable God will wink at
our idolatry as that he saw it not? seeing that he commanded judgment to
be executed so severely against idolaters, and against such as only
provoked or solicited to idolatry, that neither should blood nor affinity,
multitude nor riches, save such as offended; neither yet that the husband
should conceal the offence of his own wife; neither the father the iniquity
of his son or of his daughter, but that the father, husband, or brother,
should be first to accuse son, daughter, brother, or wife. And why?
"Because he intended," says Moses, "to bring thee from the
Lord thy God,
who led thee forth of the land of Egypt. And therefore let him die, that all
Israel hearing may fear, and that thereafter they commit not such
abomination in the midst of thee. "Let nothing appertaining to such a
man
or city cleave unto thy hand, that the Lord may turn from thee the fury of
his wrath, and be moved to have compassion over thee, and multiply thee
as he has sworn unto thy fathers" (Deut. 13:10-11, 17).
In these words most evidently is expressed unto us, why **God wills that
we avoid all fellowship with idolatry, and with the maintainers of the
same**; in which are three things appertaining to our purpose chiefly to be
noted. First, that the Holy Ghost pronounces and gives warning unto us,
that maintainers of idolatry, and provokers to the same, intend to draw us
from God; and therefore he wills that we neither obey them (be they kings
or be they queens), neither yet that we conceal their impiety (were they
son, daughter, or wife), if we will have the league to stand betwixt God and
us. And here is the confirming of my first cause, why it is necessary that
we avoid idolatry, because that otherwise we declare ourselves little to
regard the league and covenant of God; for that league requires that we
declare ourselves enemies to all sorts of idolatry.
Secondly, it is to be noted, that idolatry so incenses and kindles the wrath
of God, that it is never quenched till the offenders, and all that they
possess, are destroyed from the earth; for he commanded them to be
stoned to the death, and their substance to be burnt; and if a city
offended,
that it shall be altogether destroyed without mercy. This may appear a
severe and rigorous judgment. But if you shall consider the cause, God's
great mercy towards us shall be espied; forthereunto he declares himself
[an] enemy unto our enemies. For all those that would draw us from God
(be they kings or queens), being of the devil's nature, are enemies unto
God, and therefore God wills that in such cases we declare ourselves
enemies unto them; because he would that we should understand how
odious is idolatry in his presence, and how that we cannot keep the league
betwixt him and us inviolate if we favour, follow, or spare idolaters.
"Lord,
open our eyes that we may understand the great necessity of this thy
precept. Amen."
Thirdly, it is to be noted, that obedience given to God's precepts in this
case, is the cause why God shows his mercy upon us, why he multiplies us,
and does embrace us with fatherly love and affection. *Where by the
contrary, by consenting to idolatry, by haunting or favouring of the same,
the mercies of God are shut up from us, and we [are] cut off from the body
of Christ*, left to wither and rot, as trees without sap or moisture; and
then, alas! in what estate stand we? In the same assuredly that Christ
declares the unfruitful branches to be, which are cut from the stock,
wither, and are gathered in fagots to the fire.
O, dearly beloved, if we will stand in league with God, and be accounted
the children of faith, we must follow the footsteps of Abraham, who, at
God's commandment, left his native country, because it was defiled with
idolatry. God gave to him but a commandment, saying, Pass out of thy
father's house; and he, without further reasoning, did obey. And, alas!
shall
not so many precepts as are given to us to flee and avoid idolatry, move
us, seeing that God shows himself so offended with idolaters, that he
commands all such to be slain without mercy?
But now, shall some demand, What then? Shall we go to and slay all
idolaters? That were the office, dear brethren, of every civil magistrate
within his realm. *But of you is required only to avoid [the] participation
and company of their abominations, as well in body as in soul*; as David
and Paul plainly teach unto you. David in his exile, in the midst of
idolaters, says, I will not offer their drink offerings of blood, neither
yet
will I take their name in my mouth (Ps. 16:4). And Paul says, Ye may not
be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils. Ye may not
drink the Lord's cup and the cup of devils (1 Cor. 10:21). As these two
places of God's most sacred scripture plainly resolve the former question,
so do they confirm that which is said before, that the league betwixt God
and us requires the avoiding of all idolatry" (John Knox, "A Godly
Letter of
Warning or Admonition to the Faithful in London, Newcastle, and Berwick
1553," Extracted from: _Selected Writings of John Knox: Public
Epistles,
Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559_ [Presbyterian Heritage
Publications, reprinted 1995], pp. 173-176, emphases added).
END QUOTE
But back to one more specific surrounding the situation in Geneva. This
example further strengthens both my argument that Frame would have
been disciplined in Geneva (even civilly) and my contention that you are
no Reformer when the worship question is in view -- and remember,
purity of worship was one of the two major concerns (according to Calvin
and many others) of the Reformation. Stevenson (who is no friend of
classic Reformation worship), after noting that "Calvin had most
intimate
dealings (with) Louis Bourgeois" and took pleasure in singing
Bourgeois'
melodies to the Psalms, relates the following episode,
Bourgeois "was arrested in 1551 and placed in prison for having changed
'without permission' the melodies of certain psalms, which he had himself
written some years earlier. Robert Bridges (_The Yattendon Hymnal_, p. 9)
remarks: 'He was imprisoned by his employers for his musical innovation...
and having suffered Calvin for sixteen years...lost his appointment and left
Geneva on account of Calvin's objection to part-singing" (_Patterns of
Protestant Church Music_ [Duke University Press, 1953], p. 19).
All his proof of classic Calvinist worship patterns considered, even the
antagonistic Stevenson (_Patterns of Protestant Church Music_) is honest
enough to admit that
"(i)n our day Calvin's precepts on church music are more honored in the
breach than in the observance. His authority has been invoked for the
introduction of certain high-church practices into our large Presbyterian
churches; but no responsible scholar has been able to discover evidence in
his writings for current practices in the conduct of church music. Modern
departures from Calvinist musical theory are basic. These departures from
Calvin's straight and narrow path have led modern Presbyterians
(neopresbyterians--RB) into an acceptance of instrumental music, and
particularly organ music, as a permitted feature of divine worship; into an
acceptance of 'hymns of human composure' as a permitted feature of
worship song in place of the inspired psalms; into an acceptance of singing
in parts as a permitted feature of worship song. But Calvin never allowed
organ music in the churches of Geneva. He (positively--RB) sanctioned only
inspired psalms and material suitable for congregational singing. And he
vigorously opposed any attempt to introduce part singing into the
congregational singing of the psalms" (pp. 13-14).
Stevenson cites Calvin's _Commentary of the Book of Psalms_ III, 494-495;
V, 312; III, 98; III, 312 for corroboration.
Stevenson also charts Calvinistic opposition to "Frame-like"
innovations in
worship from Augustine and the covenanted Reformation in the British
Isles to John Cotton ("who vigorously denounced organs: 'singing with
instruments was typical, and so a ceremonial worship and therefore
ceased,'" p. 17) and Cotton Mather in New England. Continuing his
survey
he notes,
"So reverentially did the Scottish churches regard Calvin's
interpretation of
Scripture that authorizations for organs in the various branches of the
Presbyterian Church were delayed until 1866 for the Established Church,
1872 for the United Presbyterian Church, and 1883 for the Free Church.
And, of course, the ultra-Calvinist Reformed Presbyterian Church of
America even now forbid the use of organs and the singing of hymns"
(pp.
17-18).
The paleopresbyterian suppression of idolatry is no new position, and if
you think the circus that Frame would conjure up under the pretense of
Christian worship would have escaped negative sanctions in all the major
(non-Lutheran) centers of Reform (in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries), then you are dreaming in some colors that have yet to be
discovered. Clearly, Frame would have been disciplined (ecclesiastically, as
well as civilly) for his apostasy and idolatry (as exhibited in his book
_Worship in Spirit and Truth_). Only those grossly ignorant of classic
Reformation thought would dispute this. Frame would have been
disciplined *even* under first Reformation standards, never mind under
the greater attainments of the second Reformation (and the standards
many Presbyterians -- including Frame -- today *pretend* to adopt).
Anyone with even a introductory knowledge of the Reformation, and a
cursory acquaintance with Frame's book would rightly and readily be
compelled (by honest historical scholarship) to adopt the conclusions I've
set forth. This is just a matter of the historical record; you may disagree
with what the Reformers did, but you can not deny that I have faithfully
represented their position. Even the apostate, schismatic "church"
historian
Philip Schaff is honest enough to admit that my position concerning the
covenanting, confessionalism, discipline and antitolerationism of both
Calvin's Geneva and the later Covenanted Reformation in the British Isles is
accurate. Though he clearly disparages the Reformers' beliefs and actions,
Schaff conjoins Calvin's covenanting under the terms of the _Geneva
Confession of Faith_ with
"the same inconsistency and intolerance (that) was repeated a hundred
years later on a much lager scale in the 'Solemn League and Covenant' of
the Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans against popery and
prelacy, and sanctioned in 1643 by the Westminster Assembly of Divines
which vainly attempted to prescribe a creed, a Church polity, and a
directory of worship for the three nations" (_History of the Christian
Church_, vol. 8, pp. 356-357).
Schaff gets the history right, but he confuses the Reformer's corporate
obedience to the first, second, third, fifth and ninth commandments with
what he calls a vain attempt "to prescribe a creed, a Church polity,
and a
directory of worship for the three nations." Though the idea of
covenanted
uniformity grates on Schaff's sectarian sensibilities, and he conveniently
forgets that Josiah (and other kings) made the same "vain
attempts" under
the old administration of the covenant, he retains enough integrity not to
attempt to bury Reformation history on this point -- though he obviously
disdains this aspect of classical Protestantism.
A list of *other offences* which the Geneva Presbytery would have never
tolerated in Frame can be found in _The Register of the Company of
Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin_, edited and translated by Philip
Edgcumbe Hughes (Eerdmans, 1966). I see six chargeable offences which
could be leveled against Frame in the section "Vices which are
intolerable
in a pastor," under the "Ministerial discipline" heading (pp.
38-39). Four
others could be added from the section "Vices which can be endured
provided they are rebuked" (p. 39).
Not to leave out our Dutch Reformed brothers and sisters (in our
recounting of the old Reformed paths), and with the hope that I am not
trying the reader's patience by multiplying citations, let us look at one
quote exhibiting the old standards of Reformation maintained in the
Netherlands. In a forthcoming book _The Wonders of the Most High; or, An
Indication of the Causes, Ways and Means Whereby the United Provinces,
Against the Expectation of the Whole World, Were Elevated in Such a
Marvelous Way from Their Previous Oppression to Such Great, Awe
Inspiring Riches and Acclaim_, just translated into English (from the Dutch)
for the first time, Van de Velde (circa 1678), in the section "The
Organ in
the Worship Service and the Singing of Hymns," writes,
START QUOTE
With one word, we judge this and other novelties, in these carefree days, a
useless hindrance. This we also say of the introduction of new hymn-
books, and present day ditties, which we do not find in God's Word; as also
the playing and peeping of organs in the Church. The former are all against
the decrees of our Synods. See about singing in the Church, the National
Synod of Dordt held in 1578, art. 76; the National Synod held in
Middelburg, 1581, art. 51; the National Synod held in the Hague, 1586, art
62; at which gatherings hymns not found in Scripture are expressly
forbidden (in a footnote: those who would like to know more about singing
of the Psalms, from the Old as well as the New Testament, can read the
learned treatise by S. Omius, called 'Dissertation", the first book.
Chapter 5,
cap. 3).
It is known from Church history, that those who are after novelties, by
introducing man-made hymns and errors, have corrupted the
Congregation. Although these people have no wrong motives, it is
nevertheless not advisable to follow in their steps, since we may receive
from them copper instead of gold, as the Pious Peter Martyr witnessed
about the time hymns were introduced into the Roman Church. See Peter
Martyr on 1 Cor. 14:26. The words of lord van Aldegonde in this respect
are remarkable. In the introduction to his book of Psalms he says, "The
experience of earlier days has taught us that it is often harmful to
introduce something which is not based on the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments." The Synod of Dordt, 1578, art. 77; of Middleburg,
1581;
of Gerderland, 1640, art. 3, have all dealt with terminating, when
determining the place of the organ in the Church. The statement made by
the Synod of Dordt, 1574, art. 50, needs our special attention; where we
read, "Concerning the use of Organs in the Congregation, we hold that
according to 1 Cor. 14:19, it should not have a place in the Church; and
where it is still used when the people leave the church, it is of no use but
to forget what was heard before;" they witness that it is nothing but
frivolity. It is also remarkable that lord Rivet, contending against the
papists, mentions several of their authors, who condemn the novelty of the
Organ, and point out that is is without profit. Rivet, Cathol. Orthodox.
tom.
1, pag. 561.
To know the reason why Organs should be kept our of the church, read our
learned theologians and their polemics about Organs against the Lutherans
and Papists, see Faukee, about Psalm 45, pag. 20. Also Lodoc. Larenus, in
cap. 12 Esa, pag. 47, where we find the story of the duty of Middleburg's
consistory to do away with the Organ; Hoornbeek disput. 2, de Psalmodia.
thes 7; Rivet, in Exod. cap. 15 vs. 12. Imprimis Gisb. Voetii. Polit. Eccl.
part
1, pag. 548. Hospiniamus de Templis, pag. 309. It would be better if this
and other novelties were not mentioned.
END QUOTE
In the days of the Westminster Assembly even the civil magistrates had
more sense than most modern "preachers." Girardeau, in his
_Instrumental
Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ (pp. 132, 133 in the 1888
edition) notes,
START QUOTE
Before the Westminster Assembly of Divines undertook the office of
preparing a Directory of Worship, the Parliament had authoritatively
adopted measures looking to the removal of organs, along with other
remains of Popery, from the churches of England. On the 20th of May,
1644, the commissioners from Scotland wrote to the General Assembly of
their church and made the following statement among others: "We cannot
but admire the good hand of God in the great things done here already,
particularly that the covenant, the foundation of the whole work, is taken,
Prelacy and the whole train thereof extirpated, the service-book in many
places forsaken, plain and powerful preaching set up, many colleges in
Cambridge provided with such ministers as are most zealous of the best
reformation, altars removed, the communion in some places given at the
table with sitting, THE GREAT ORGANS AT PAUL'S AND PETER'S IN
WESTMINSTER TAKEN DOWN (emphasis added), images and many other
monuments of idolatry defaced and abolished, the Chapel Royal at
Whitehall purged and reformed; and all by authority, in a quiet manner, at
noon-day, without tumult." (Girardeau cites this quotation from the
_Acts
of Assembly of the Church of Scotland,_ 1644.) So thorough was the work
of removing organs that the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" says that
"at the
Revolution most of the organs in England had been destroyed."
(Girardeau
cites Art., _Organ._)
When, therefore, the Assembly addressed itself to the task of framing a
Directory for Worship, it found itself confronted by a condition of the
churches of Great Britain in which the singing of psalms without
instrumental accompaniment almost universally prevailed. In prescribing,
consequently, the singing of psalms without making any allusion to the
restoration of instrumental music, it must, in all fairness, be construed to
specify the simple singing of praise as a part of public worship. The
question, moreover, is settled by the consideration that had any debate
occurred as to the propriety of allowing the use of instrumental music, the
Scottish commissioners would have vehemently and uncompromisingly
opposed that measure. But Lightfoot, who was a member of the Assembly,
in his "Journal of its Proceedings" (Girardeau cites _Works,_ Vol.
xiii., pp.
343, 344; London, 1825.) tells us: "This morning we fell upon the
Directory
for singing of psalms; and, in a short time, we finished it." He says
that the
only point upon which the Scottish commissioners had some discussion was
the reading of the Psalms line by line.
END QUOTE
The larger history on this subject is also instructive. Again Girardeau
informs us ("Historical Argument" pp. 158, 159, 161, 165, 170, 179
in the
1888 edition of _Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the
Church_),
START QUOTE
With reference to the time when organs were first introduced into use in
the Roman Catholic Church, let us hear Bingham: "It is now generally
agreed among learned men that the use of organs came into the church
since the time of Thomas Aquinas, Anno 1250; for he, in his Summs, has
these words: 'Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and
psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to
Judaize."...Mr.
Wharton also has observed that Marinus Sanutus, who lived about the year
1290, was the first who brought the use of wind-organs into churches,
whence he was surnamed Torcellus, which is the name for an organ in the
Italian tongue....Let us pause a moment to notice the fact, supported by a
mass of incontrovertible evidence, that the Christian church did not
employ instrumental music in its public worship for 1200 years after
Christ....It deserves serious consideration, moreover, that notwithstanding
the ever-accelerated drift towards corruption in worship as well as in
doctrine and government, the Roman Catholic Church did not adopt this
corrupt practice until about the middle of the thirteenth century....When
the organ was introduced into its worship it encountered strong opposition,
and made its way but slowly to general acceptance. These assuredly are
facts that should profoundly impress Protestant churches. How can they
adopt a practice which the Roman Church, in the year 1200, had not
admitted...Then came the Reformation; and the question arises, How did
the Reformers deal with instrumental music in the church?...Zwingle has
already been quoted to show instrumental music was one of the shadows
of the old law which has been realized in the gospel. He pronounces its
employment in the present dispensation "wicked pervicacity." There
is no
doubt in regard to his views on the subject, which were adopted by the
Swiss Reformed churches...Calvin is very express in his condemnation of
instrumental music in connection with the public worship of the Christian
church...In his homily on 1 Sam. xviii. 1-9, he delivers himself
emphatically
and solemnly upon the subject: "In Popery there was a ridiculous and
unsuitable imitation [of the Jews]. While they adorned their temples, and
valued themselves as having made the worship of God more splendid and
inviting, they employed organs (emphasis added), and many other such
ludicrous things, by which the Word and worship of God are exceedingly
profaned, the people being much more attached to those rites than to the
understanding of the divine Word..." Whatever may be the practice in
recent times of the churches of Holland, the Synods of the Reformed Dutch
Church, soon after the Reformation, pronounced very decidedly against the
use of instrumental music in public worship. The National Synod at
Middleburg, in 1581, declared against it, and the Synod of Holland and
Zealand, in 1594, adopted this strong resolution; "That they would
endeavor to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the
singing with them in the churches...." The Provincial Synod of Dort
also
inveighed severely against their use...The Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon,
...upholds an apostolic simplicity of worship. The great congregation which
is blessed with the privilege of listening to his instructions has no organ
"to
assist" them in singing...The non-prelatic churches, Independent and
Presbyterian, began their development on the American continent without
instrumental music. They followed the English Puritans and the Scottish
Church, which had adopted the principles of the Calvinistic Reformed
Church...It has thus been proved by an appeal to historical facts, that the
church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and
into a corruption of apostolic practice, had no instrumental music for
twelve hundred years; and that the Calvinistic Reformed Church ejected it
from its services as a element of Popery, even the Church of England
having come very nigh to its extrusion from her worship. The historical
argument, therefore, combines with the scriptural and the confessional to
raise a solemn and powerful protest against its employment by the
Presbyterian Church. IT IS HERESY IN THE SPHERE OF WORSHIP (emphasis
added).
END QUOTE
Tying this into the discipline question, McKnight gently and succinctly
summarizes the classic Presbyterian position on worship and admission to
the Lord's Supper in his book _Concerning Close Communion_. This book
was originally written for young people in the RPCNA and is an excellent
introduction to the governmental aspect of the Lord's Supper. In it
McKnight writes,
"We hold, whether rightly or wrongly, that to undertake to praise God
with
songs other than those which the Holy Spirit has inspired for that purpose
is a sin, and such a sin as, unrepented of, should prevent a person from
sitting down at the Lord's table, either in our Church or in any other.
We hold, whether rightly or wrongly, that to introduce instrumental music
into the New Testament worship, when the Apostles organized that
worship without it, is a sin, and such a sin as, unrepented of, should
prevent a person from sitting down at the Lord's table, either in our
Church or in any other...
The fact is that we find ourselves under obligation, in these respects, to
bear a faithful testimony not only to the world, but to such other Churches
also as differ with us on these intrinsically important questions. At the
communion table our testimony comes to its climax. Shall we weaken
where we should be immovable? Shall we make it apparent on the Holy
Mount that we are sincere in our conclusions and mean to maintain them
to the end, or shall we choose the Holy Mount to make it apparent to other
Churches and to the world, that we only half believe what we profess?
Here, of all places, it would seem, we ought to aim to be perfect, even as
our Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48)."
Oh no, another one of those bad "perfectionistic and schismatic
anabaptists"
some might claim; but those who know the truth know better. I wonder
how many who claim the classic Presbyterian position today still teach
their young people to walk down these "old paths." Do you teach
these
truths to your young people Doug?
In light of all this information I ask: Would Frame have survived Calvin's
Geneva, Knox's Scotland or the Covenanted Reformation of the seventeenth
century without being excommunicated for the views he sets forth in his
book _Worship in Spirit and Truth_? I say no way! That is what I said on
the Knox Ring, it is the truth, and I stand by it -- in spite of all the
neopresbyterian nonsense spouted by our modern-day malignants!
The real problem here is not what I did (on the Knox Ring) or what the
Reformers did (in their covenants and confessions), but rather the general
level of historical ignorance (regarding these matters) prevalent in the
modern professing Reformed community. The historical testimony to the
truth (which cost many lives) has been to a great extent buried and
forgotten in our day and your attacks on me and classic Reformation
thought (and history) are a prime example of the prevailing ignorance. I do
not say this out of any personal animosity against you or for any other
reason than that it is true; and that it is an expression of Christ's love
to
tell the truth to those who are in error. I still pray that you will be
given
grace from God to humble yourself and repent of your errors and slander;
and even that you would become open, over time, to studying the many
source documents of the Reformation that I have offered to you. I would
like nothing better than to join hands with you in the unity of the one true
faith (Ps. 133) and together fight the ongoing battle for Reformation truth.
But as two cannot walk together unless they be agreed (Amos 3:3), any
show of unity at this point would be a false show and compromised unity -
- which is always displeasing to God. Unity is only in the truth (cf. _Unity
and Uniformity in the Church_ by Thomas Houston).
Other testimonies verifying the Reformation position on close communion
and the ecclesiastical suppression of public idolatry could easily be
multiplied. For those who are willing to research this subject I suggest the
following works:
ON CLOSE COMMUNION
_Concerning Close Communion_ by W.J. McKnight (especially pp. 27-49 in
regard the Frame/worship controversy). Also available on cassette.
_Close Communion_ by R.J. George
_An Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion, Adopted by the
Community of Dissenters, etc._ by The Reformed Presbytery
_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the
Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_ by the Church of Scotland General
Assembly
_Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church
of Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil Government, and the
Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution Principles_ Andrew
Clarkson (Free sections at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Schism.htm
and
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PlainTOC.htm
)
_A Hind Let Loose_ by Alexander Shields
_Strictures on Occasional Hearing_ by James Douglas
_Covenanting, Communion and Confessions: With a Short Summary of the
Westminster Confession of Faith_ by by W.J. McKnight
_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_ by the Reformed Presbytery
_A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ by Samuel
Rutherford
_Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty_ by George
Gillespie
_A Modest Apology for the Conduct of Seceders, in Refusing to Join in
Christian Communion with Sectarians, Latitudinarians, etc. Who Have
Departed From the Purity of Reformation Once Attained to in these
Kingdoms_ by Anonymous
_The Lawfulness and Duty of Separation from Corrupt Ministers and
Churches Explained and Vindicated_ by James Fraser (of Brae)
ON WORSHIP
_Biblical Worship_ by Kevin Reed (also free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm
)
_The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody_ by
Michael Bushell
_Come Out From Among Them: The "Anti-Nicodemite" Writings of John
Calvin_ by John Calvin (forthcoming)
_Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly and Preserving the Purity of
the Christian Religion_ by John Calvin
_War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to
Calvin_ by Carlos Eire
_Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ by John
Girardeau
_The Badge of Popery: Musical Instruments in Public Worship_ by R.J.
George
_Exclusive Psalmody_ by Greg Price (7 cassettes)
_Instrumental Music in Public Worship_ by Greg Price (2 cassettes)
_Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship_ by Greg
Price (also on 2 cassettes)
_Reformation Worship and Separation from Idolatry_ by Reg Barrow (Free,
in two parts, at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTPWors.htm
and
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTPsSing.htm
)
_A Warning Against the False and Dangerous Views of James Jordan
Concerning Worship: A Book Review of Kevin Reed's Canterbury Tales_ by
Reg Barrow (Free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BlastJJ.htm
)
_Christmass: A Biblical Critique_ by Kevin Reed
_The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas_ by Brian Schwertley
_Heart and Voice: Instruments in Christian Worship Not Authorized _ by
James Glasgow
_A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church
of Scotland_ by George Gillespie (for advanced study)
_The Canterbury Tales_ by Kevin Reed (Free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Canterbu.htm
)
The study of these books will show how far from the Reformed faith Frame
and most modern Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have strayed.
All of what I have said should be also considered in light of the fact that
the church as a moral person (cf. "What is a Moral Person? How God
Views
the Church and the Nations" free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/moral.htm
) had
grown considerably (in its corporate sanctification) from the time of the
first Reformation to the time of the second Reformation. (In my book on
Frame I hope to show, using documents such as the _The Acts of the
General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the
Year 1649 Inclusive_ by the Church of Scotland General Assembly, that my
statement regarding Frame's excommunication for idolatry would have not
even been close to coming into question. In fact, Frame would have never
even come close to being ordained under these standards because he
would have not have been allowed to be a member of the Church of
Scotland in these days -- in that he publicly opposed their confessions,
covenants and terms of communion.) She (the visible church) was thus
then obligated to a much higher standard (in terms of public historical
attainments), in the same way an individual is obligated to a greater
degree of sanctification as he progresses in the faith (though we always
have a duty to conform to the whole moral law of God). These
**superadded obligations** are brought upon the church in the same way
an oath further obligates one to do that which is already a moral duty
(such as telling the truth). To think or do that which is a declining from
previous attainments is backsliding and apostasy, and this applies to the
moral person of the church as well as to individuals. Thus,
"every separation is not schism, even from the church which hath
essentials; yea, and more than essentials: if it be from those (though never
so many) who are drawing back from whatever piece of duty and integrity
is attained; for this is still to be held fast, according to many scripture
commands (see the five listed below--RB). So Elias (Elijah--RB), when God's
covenant was forsaken, was as another Athanasius (I and I only am left) in
point of tenacious integrity" (Shields, _A Hind Let Loose_, p. 271).
"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set"
(Prov.
22:28).
"Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the
same
rule, let us mind the same thing" (Phil. 3:16).
"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already
been;
and *God requireth that which is past*" (Eccl. 3:15, emphasis added).
"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. But they said, We will not walk therein" (Jer. 6:16).
"That ye be not slothful, but *followers of them* who through faith and
patience inherit the promises" (Heb. 6:12, emphasis added).
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>As for the charges you are bringing against me (& Nathan & Doug)
in your
>church court, I would encourage you to wait until after the publication
of
>your book. A casual reader of the correspondence might wonder why
charges
>against members of Church A were being brought before the elders of
Church
>B. "Gee, is that presbyterian?" they might wonder. And no
wonder. But no
>doubt you have found somewhere a big fat book showing how the
attainments of
>the Reformation, properly understood, require that we all become
>perfectionistic and schismatic anabaptists. Well, speaking for me and my
>house, we are not going to have any of it.
REG BARROW WRITES:
First, you still don't seem to understand that you do not belong to a church
that is *duly constituted* (because of the false doctrine that you preach
and adopted constitutionally -- and as demonstrated by what you tolerate
at the Lord's table) and therefore you posit a false premise. There is no
church A and church B (constitutionally), as demonstrated in my previous
letters. There is just a church A and I am bringing my charges before
them. You and your "church" have no lawful *ministerial authority*
from
Christ.
I should also mention, in light of the fact that you have no church
(constitutionally) and that you are no duly called minister (while you
obstinately maintain serious errors contrary to Scripture), faithful
Christians should not attend your public Lords' days services (Rom. 16:17,
Prov. 19:27). Furthermore, those who attend your preaching practise the
sin of occasional hearing (cf. _Strictures on Occasional Hearing_ by James
Douglas) and those who take the Lord's Supper from your hand also sin (cf.
_Alexander and Rufus_ by John Anderson on occasional communion and
close communion).
Second, another point at which you continue in darkness has to do with
how the Reformers judged the true from the false church. You confuse our
statements concerning *doctrinal* attainments and faithfulness *at a
constitutional level* with the Anabaptist error of focusing on the conduct
of individuals in the church (as a basis for separation). Greaves, in
_Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation_, comments,
"Knox was faced with the possibility of men withdrawing from his
movement because of immoral behavior by some of his adherents. He
repudiated this course by contending that the lives of church members are
no assured sign of a true visible church. Much more significant is the
doctrine preached and accepted in the church. If the Word of God is given
supreme authority, if Christ is accepted as the sole Savior, and if the
sacraments are rightly administered, the church is legitimate. There have
always been vices in the true church and virtuous heathen outside it. If
virtuous lives are an assured sign of election, Knox argued, Moslems would
have to be counted among the elect. Thus the church's status as true or
malignant must be determined by doctrine rather than by the morality or
immorality of its members (the endnote here refers the reader to Knox's
_Works_, vol. 4, pp. 263-267).
Calvin also used and made the same distinctions regarding the visible
church. The famous ecclesiastical section of the _Institutes_ (Book 4,
Chapter 2), particularly the portion so often referred to in debates
concerning the nature of the visible church (section 12), includes Calvin's
indispensable delineation of the two ways in which the church is visible
(i.e. as to *essence* as seen in those professing the truth [with their
children] and also as corporately *constituted*). Calvin here recognizes the
visible church at Rome in the remnant of professors there present, but
goes on to call for separation from Rome in that she, as a corporate entity
(being a harlot and not Christ's chaste bride), is not duly (or lawfully)
constituted. The Battles edition of the _Institutes_ (4.2.12) beautifully
translates Calvin's summary of this Scripturally faithful argument,
"However, *when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the
church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among
them*. Rather, we are only contending about **the true and lawful
constitution of the church**, required in the communion not only of the
sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of
doctrine. Daniel [Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that
Antichrist
would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make
the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom.
The fact that his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his
reign
was not to be such as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the
church. From this it therefore is evident that we *by no means deny that
the churches under his tyranny remain churches*. But these he has
profaned by his sacrilegious impiety, afflicted by his inhuman domination,
corrupted and well-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrines, which are
like poisoned drinks. In them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel
overthrown, piety scattered, the worship of God nearly wiped out. In them,
briefly, everything is so confused that there we see the face of Babylon
rather than that of the Holy City of God. To sum up, **I call them churches
to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his
people**, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that
some marks of the church remain–especially those marks whose
effectiveness neither the devil's wiles nor human depravity can destroy
(note: this is why the Reformers accepted Roman Catholic baptisms as
valid, though not lawful–RB). But on the other hand, because in them those
marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this
discourse (i.e. the faithful preaching of the Word, scripturally regulated
worship, etc. -- RB), **I say that every one of their congregations and
their
whole body lack the lawful form of the church** (emphases added).
Without the understanding of Calvin's (and the bulk of other major
Reformers') ecclesiology on this point, it is impossible to fully appreciate
the Reformers' position regarding separation, schism, the sacraments, the
ministry, eschatology, etc. This is one of the reasons you confuse what we
(and the Reformers) are saying with what the Anabaptists taught. We are
dealing with the visible church (and those that profess to be such) as to
its
*constituted corporate character* (regarding separation), as Calvin and
Knox did; not as to the acts and beliefs of her individual members, as the
Anabaptists did. By the way, the latitudinarian neopresbyterian
"Alexander" makes charges similar to those you are bringing
against us,
against the almost paleopresbyterian "Rufus" (who represents the
Seceder
position), by misusing the Donatist's and Novation's (who maintained a
number of positions similar to the Anabaptists). These false charges are
soundly answered and refuted in John Andersons's book, _Alexander and
Rufus_, on pages 110-123.
Larry Birger has been granted the following insights (adapted from a letter
origianlly written to Larry Woiwode), further collaborating the
development of this teaching from both first and second Reformation
confessional documents,
START QUOTE
My studies of the original teachings of the reformers, over the last year
and a half, have led me to many striking and saddening conclusions. In
short, I am more convinced than ever that if the reformers were
*essentially * correct... in their exposition of the scriptures, then only
one
evaluation can be made of today's "reformed" and
"presbyterian" churches
by the candid student of scripture and history: *we are apostate*. I see
clearly taught by outstanding reformers that the Roman church was the
whore of Babylon (indeed, this teaching was *creedal* in at least one case),
who makes war with the woman (the faithful church) and her seed,
driving them to exile in the wilderness (Rev. 12; WCF 25:4; note the
Scripture proofs for the WCF, suprascript 'h', here). It should be carefully
noted that this wicked harlot is described as being a mother (Rev. 17:5).
Who then are the daughters? All those churches who, regardless of their
glorying in names like "Protestant", "reformed", etc.,
nevertheless follow in
the footsteps of the Roman whore and her idolatry and filth.
Please note that I am referring to the churches here in their *formal* or
*constitutional* capacity, for I believe that there are some, if not many,
of
God's people still among them. It is in this capacity that we are to apply
the tests of the marks of the true church (Scottish Confession of Faith,
Chapter 18, and WCF 25:4), whereas the church in her *essential* capacity
is simply, "all those throughout the world who profess the true
religion,
together with their children" (WCF 25:2; WLC 62), and not the church's
organization or government. This government and ministry is given
"*unto* this catholick visible church" (WCF 25:3), which
presupposes her
existence apart from them; this is confirmed in WLC 62-63, where the
ministry, etc., are privileges given to her, not essential characterisics.
That
the organizational form of the church equals the church is a Popish error
rampant in our day; Calvin considered this a fundamental difference
between Protestants and Papists, as he says in his "Prefatory Address
to
King Francis," _Institutes_, p. 24-25 (Battles edition):
"Our controversy turns on these hinges: first, they contend that the
form of
the church is always apparent and observable. Secondly, they set this form
in the see of the Roman Church and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary,
affirm that the church can exist without any visible appearance, and that
its appearance {i.e. when the church in her organized form is indeed
visible} is not contained within that outward magnificence which they
foolishly admire. Rather, it has quite another mark: namely, the pure
preaching of God's Word and the lawful administration of the sacraments.
They rage if the church cannot always be pointed to with the finger. But
among the Jewish people how often was it so deformed that no semblance
of it remained? What form do we think it displayed when Elijah
complained that he alone was left [I Kings 19:10, or 14]? How long after
Christ's coming was it hidden without form? How often has it since that
time been so oppressed by wars, seditions, and heresies that it did not
shine forth at all? If they had lived at that time,would they have believed
that any church existed?"
Therefore, in the former capacity a given church can be considered false, a
synagogue of Satan, and of the whore, while at the same time, considered
in the latter capacity, she nevertheless can have in her a true church. This
is evident from Rev. 18:4, where God's people are yet among Babylon the
whore (note that Rev. 18:2 is a proof-text for the phrase, "some have
so
degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of
Satan"
in WCF 25:5). It is also evident from Calvin's _Institutes_,, IV:2.12 (by
the
way, please note in this and the quote above how often Calvin uses the
word "form" and similar words when considering the church from
these
two different angles)... It must be stressed that, because these churches
have followed in the whore's footsteps, they are guilty of dividing the body
of Christ; they are *schismatics*, who have *separated* themselves (though
they be in the vast majority numerically) from the company of the faithful
(who are the great minority), and are instead walking disorderly and
causing divisions contrary to the apostolic doctrine and practice (II Thess.
3:6,14; Rom. 16:17).
END QUOTE
As a short aside, it is also interesting to note that Birger refers to
Chapter
18 of _The Scottish Confession of Faith (1560)_. This chapter (and the
whole _Scottish Confession_ for that matter) should be required reading
for every modern evangelical and neopresbyterian. I bring this up here
because it confirms my previous answer regarding your assertion about
"Moses seat," separation and the visible church. Notice how
chapter 18
deals with scribes, Pharisees and the "whole priesthood of the
Jews" in the
first century. I am going to cite the whole chapter (from the Presbyterian
Heritage Publications edition reprinted in 1992) so that the reader can get
the whole context. I will add emphases to the sections that address your
assertion about "Moses' seat." (The complete 1560 _The Scottish
Confession
of Faith_ is available free of charge on SWRB"s web page at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/ScotConf.htm
).
START QUOTE
Chapter 18
Of the Notes by Which the True Kirk is Discerned from the False and Who
Shall be Judge of the Doctrine
Because that Satan from the beginning has laboured to deck his pestilent
synagogue with the title of the kirk of God, and has inflamed the hearts of
cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and
members thereof -- as Cain did Abel; [Gen. 4:8] Ishmael, Isaac; [Gen. 21:9]
Esau, Jacob; [Gen. 27:41] and **the whole priesthood of the Jews, Christ
Jesus himself, and his apostles after him**; [Matt. 23:34; John 15:18-20,24;
11:47,53; Acts 4:1-3; 5:17, etc.] it is a thing most requisite that the true
kirk be discerned from the filthy synagogue, by clear and perfect notes,
lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace to our own condemnation the
one for the other. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the
immaculate spouse of Christ Jesus is known from that horrible harlot, the
kirk malignant; we affirm are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal
descent, place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an error -- for
Cain in age and title was preferred to Abel and Seth; [Gen. 4:1] Jerusalem
had prerogative above all places of the earth, [Ps. 48:2-3; Matt. 5:35]
where
also were the priests lineally descended from Aaron; and **greater
multitude followed the scribes, Pharisees, and priests, than unfeignedly
believed and approved Christ Jesus and his doctrine**; [John 12:42] and
yet, as we suppose, **no man (of whole judgment) will grant that any of
the forenamed were the kirk of God**.
The notes, therefore, of the true kirk of God we believe, confess, and avow
to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, into the which God has
revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do
declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ
Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal
and confirm the same in our hearts; [Eph. 2:20; Acts 2:42; John 10:27;
18:37; 1 Cor. 1:13; Matt. 18:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; 1 Cor. 11:24-26; Rom.
4:11] last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's word
prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished. [Matt. 18:15-
18; 1 Cor. 5:4-5] Wheresoever then these former notes are seen, and of any
time continue (be the number [of persons] never so few, about two or
three) there, without all doubt, is the true kirk of Christ: who, according
to
his promise is in the midst of them: [Matt. 18:19-20] not that universal
[kirk] (of which we have before spoken) but particular; such as were in
Corinth, [1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:2] Galatia, [Gal. 1:2] Ephesus, [Eph. 1:1;
Acts
16:9-10; 18:1, etc.; 20:17, etc.] and other places in which the ministry was
planted by Paul, and were of himself named the kirks of God.
And such kirks we, the inhabitants of the realm of Scotland, professors of
Christ Jesus, confess ourselves to have in our cities, towns, and places
reformed; for the doctrine taught in our kirks is contained in the written
word of God: to wit, in the books of the New and Old Testaments: in those
books, we mean, which of the ancient have been reputed canonical, in the
which we affirm that all things necessary to be believed for the salvation
of mankind are sufficiently expressed. [John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16-17] The
interpretation whereof, we confess, neither appertains to private nor
public person, neither yet to any kirk for any preeminence or prerogative,
personal or local, which one has above another; but appertains to the Spirit
of God, by the which also the scripture was written. [2 Pet. 1:20-21.]
When controversy then happens, for the right understanding of any place
or sentence of scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the
kirk of God, we ought not so much to look what men before us have said or
done, as unto that which the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body
of the scriptures, and unto that which Christ Jesus himself did, and
commanded to be done. [John 5:39] For this is a thing universally granted,
that the Spirit of God (which is the Spirit of unity) is in nothing contrary
unto himself. [Eph. 4:3-4] If then the interpretation, determination, or
sentence of any doctor, kirk, or council, repugn to the plain word of God
written in any other place of scripture, it is a thing most certain, that
there
is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, supposing
that councils, realms, and nations have approved and received the same.
For we dare not receive and admit any interpretation which directly
repugns to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of
scripture, or yet unto the rule of charity.
END QUOTE
You used the example of "Moses' seat" to buttress your false
ecumenism
and confusion over the visible church; the National Presbyterian church of
Scotland (in Knox's day) obviously came to the exact opposite conclusion.
They term those sitting in Moses' seat Satan's "pestilent
synagogue," adding
that "no man (of whole judgment) will grant that any of the forenamed
were the kirk of God." Once again you are at odds with the classic
Presbyterianism view of what Scripture teaches -- even to the point of
mistaking Presbyterianism for the Anabatist heresy. More on this question
is also found in John Anderson's _Alexander and Rufus_ on pages 237-238.
The distinction between the two ways in which the visible church was
viewed by the Reformers , which we continue to maintain, is sprinkled
throughout their writings (and the writings of those who followed in their
footsteps). Some examples of this can be seen in:
_Alexander and Rufus_ by John Anderson
pp. 10, 15-17, 53, 77.
For those interested in specifically determining the differences between
what Greg Price terms the "Constitutional vs. the Unconstituional
Church,"
he has also provided this short list:
_An Apologetical Relation_ by John Brown (of Wamphray)
pp. 156, 157, 158.
_Due Right of Presbytery_ by Samuel Rutherford
pp. 64, 67, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 117, 240, 241, 151, 158, 265, 283, 286, 287,
415, 223 (--the second p. 223 in the book), 230 (b), 231 (b), 243(b),
249(b).
_A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ by Samuel
Rutherford
pp. 36, 41, 66, 67, 68, 73, 98, 271.
Larry Birger has also written a useful introduction to these ideas, see his
"The Visible Church: Essence Versus Lawful Form" free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/vischu.htm
(or write
us for this free newsletter).
While the Reformers did not always utilize the exact same terminolgy we
use, the ideas are clearly the same.
Third, some examples from history will further serve to expose your
ignorance of Presbyterianism and your "church A, church B"
scenario.
These examples prove that those outside of a duly constituted visible
church can come under discipline (even if only as a matter of testimony
before God and men). This is due, in part, because they are baptized
members of the visible church (as to her essential character). If the
greater
sanction of excommunication can be brought against those not of the same
church, then certainly the lesser steps (i.e. charges) leading up to
excommunication are also legitimate. Because you are not a member of the
a duly constituted visible church (though individually you are part of the
visible church, as to essence, by baptism and profession) there is no reason
that Matthew 18:15-17 can not be used to reclaim you to the truth.
Below I will site two examples (enacted by two covenanted Presbyterians)
of public excommunications of those outside duly constituted churches.
This will be followed by an appeal to two classic Presbyterian standards of
the first Reformation. The two historical examples and the the two
confessional citations prove that your comments (above) reflect anything
but the classic Presbyterian view of discipline.
John Macmillan, was the principle architect of the Auchensaugh Renovation
(of the National and Solemn League and Covenant). He was the first
minister of the Covenanting Societies (when he accepted a call on Oct. 9,
1706) since the martyrdom of James Renwick in 1688 and the defections
of Boyd, Linning and Shields (in 1689 to the apostate and compromised
Revolution church). Three days after the Auchensaugh Renewal of the
National and Solemn League and Covenant, a remnant of faithful
Presbyterians in Scotland came together for the Lord's Supper (on July 27,
1712). The excommunication or "fencing of the tables" which took
place on
this momentous occasion, including some of the words which Macmillan
proclaim, is explained by the Reformed Presbytery when they note,
START QUOTE
It may be some will desiderate an account of the other solemn holy action
that followed upon the back of this (i.e. the covenant renewal lead by John
Macmillan at Auchensaugh in 1712--RB), in regard there were some
circumstances in it not so ordinary in this church in former times, because
of the paucity of public instruments; but neither do we think it needful to
give any large account of it, nor will it fall so properly into this
preface,
which concerneth only national covenanting, and, it is likely the reader's
patience is too far transgressed upon already; *nor was there any
substantial or formal difference betwixt it and the comely order of the
Church of Scotland observed in our purest times of reformation in the
celebration of that sacred ordinance, except what in the form arose from
the circumstances we were in, and the reason now mentioned*. The work
was awful and great, the persons employed about it few, insignificant in
their own eyes, as well as mean in the eyes of others; and hence the Lord's
power and grace was the more conspicuous, who (we must not dissemble
it) was present to the sensible experience of many, sealing instruction
upon the hearts of some, and granting, strengthening, and confirming grace
to others, for which he ought to have all the glory.
But because there has been, as we are informed, no small clamor raised
anent some expressions used in debarring the ignorant and scandalous
from the holy table of the Lord; *That the Minister should have
unreasonably and presumptuously excommunicated the Queen and
Parliament, and the whole Ministers of the established church of Scotland*;
Therefore, we shall here insert the very words relating to that affair, as
they were uttered by him without any alteration. In warning the ignorant,
scandalous and profane to beware of presuming to approach to the holy
table of the Lord, the minister observed (as the manner is) the order of the
decalogue, where, in the sins forbidden in the second commandment, as
they are enumerated by the very Reverend the Assembly of Divines sitting
at Westminster, in their humble advice concerning a Larger Catechism, we
find these amongst others -- "All devising, counseling, commanding, using,
and any ways approving any religious worship not instituted by God
himself, tolerating a false religion. -- All superstitious devices,
corrupting
the worship of God, adding to it, taking from it, whether invented and
taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under
the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence
whatsoever." Hence, he expressed himself in these words -- "**I
excommunicate and debar from this holy table of the Lord, all devisers,
commanders, users, or approvers of any religious worship not instituted by
God in his Word, all tolerators and countenancers thereof**; and by
consequence I debar and excommunicate from this holy table of the Lord,
Queen and Parliament, and all under them, who spread and propagate or
tolerate a false superstitious worship, ay and until they repent." And
in
relation to the opposing of the covenants and work of reformation, he had
these words -- "I excommunicate and debar all who are opposers of our
covenants and covenanted Reformation, and all that have taken oaths
contrary to our covenants, and such particularly as are takers of the Oath
of Abjuration, whether Ministers or others, until they repent."
That this was no presumptuous and rebellious arrogance is evident,
because the sins for which he debarred Queen and Parliament, and all
others guilty of them, are proven from Scripture to be gross breaches of
God's law, and every violation thereof persisted in without repentance, is a
sufficient cause (in the opinion of Protestant Divines) to debar and exclude
from the Lord's table. Now, it is certain that even those ministers of the
established church who make such obloquy against the work for this
particular, do the same thing in effect every time that they administrate
this ordinance, for (as can be proved if they please to require it, or do
deny
it,) *they excommunicate from the table all guilty of such sins as are
forbidden in the second commandment, according as they are specified in
the foresaid Catechism*; and so, by an infallible consequence, they
excommunicate the Queen and Parliament, who are grossly guilty of the
most of them, only they have not the courage ingenuously and freely to
own and express the consequence, but that it follows natively and
necessarily from the premises, even according to their own principles, they
will never be able to disprove.
Now, Reader, thou has a just and true account as far as was necessary, of
our poor and weak endeavours in this matter, which we hope will, at least,
stand as a witness and testimony (without arrogance we desire to speak it)
against the apostacy of some and indifferency of others, who should have
been to us as the he-goats before the flock in paving our way to Zion, but
are rather making to themselves captains to carry us back to Babylon, and
pollute our land with idolatry and superstition; and, as a pledge to
posterity that the Lord has not yet utterly deserted the land, though we
rather wish, (if so it may consist with his holy purpose, who is wonderful
in counsel and excellent in working) that it might tend to excite some to
bethink "whence they have fallen, and repent, and to do their first
works,
lest the Lord come quickly, and utterly remove his candlestick from
us:"
and engage them to renew these covenants in a more public way, and
prosecute the ends of them with more zeal, fidelity, and constancy,
"that
the Lord may yet delight to dwell amongst us, make our judges peace, and
our exactors righteousness," and make us to be called Hephzibah, and
our
land Beulah" (_Auchensaugh Renovation of the National Covenant and the
Solemn League and Covenant_ by the Reformed Presbytery and John
Macmillan [Still Waters Revival Books, 1880, reprinted 1995], pp. 54-56,
emphases added).
END QUOTE
This is an interesting quote for many reasons. I will mention just two.
First, it demonstrates that those who held to the full covenanted testimony
(of second Reformation attainments) focused on one of the same areas
(worship) which I did when bearing testimony (on Knox Ring) against
Frame and his heretical book. That the Covenanters would have included
Frame in this excommunication, had he been living in their day (and had
written what he wrote), is beyond a shadow of doubt. In fact, Frame's
views are so novel that I doubt that any Presbyterian church of that day
(including the constitutionally apostate Revolution Church -- who still
practised exclusive Psalmody, forbad instruments in worship, etc.) would
have even allowed Frame membership in the congregations.
Second, Macmillan's charges would also include you and your congregation
in the above excommunication (based on original intent of the specifics
mentioned in the Larger Catechism concerning both worship and the
covenants). You do not hold to the covenants and you publicly practice and
condone false worship. Moreover, with your slanderous charges of
Anabaptism against us (the modern heirs to Macmillan and the older
Covenanted testimony) you would have been a prime candidate for
excommunication on many counts.
Another example of disciplinary proceedings against those outside of a
duly constituted church can be seen in the actions of Donald Cargill.
Cargill
studied under Samuel Rutherford at St. Andrews, so I think that he would
be considered at least "somewhat" representative of second
Reformation
Presbyterianism. Those familiar with Rutherford and Cargill know that
both these men held to the covenanted attainments of the second
Reformation and were willing to risk their lives for these truths. The
_Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_ gets it right when
they note that "for many," Cargill's "abiding legacy was the
steadfast
endurance he displayed in asserting the historic claims of the Church at a
time of intense testing and trial" (p. 137). These "historic
claims" can easily
be seen to be congruent with the doctrine and practice of his teacher
Samuel Rutherford. Not two months after the martyrdom of Richard
Cameron (whom Cargill preached with in the fields in the summer of 1680)
we read of the following account,
START QUOTE
"Cargill's audience were now well prepared for what was to follow.
After
closing his discourse and calling his hearers to prayer, 'that we may the
better proceed', he came directly to the climax of his day's work. 'We have
spoken of excommunication', he said, 'of the causes, subjects and ends; we
shall now proceed to the action, being constrained by the conscience of our
duty, and zeal for God, to excommunicate some of those who have been the
committers of so great crimes and authors of so great mischiefs of Britain
and Ireland, but especially those of Scotland, and in doing of this we shall
keep the names by which they are ordinarily called, that they may be the
better known.'
Cargill then pronounced: 'I, being a minister of Jesus Christ, and having
authority and power from him, do in his name, and by his Spirit,
excommunicate, cast out of the true church and deliver up to Satan, Charles
II, king, and that upon the account of these wickednesses:
1.
For his high contempt of God, after he had acknowledged his own
sins, his father's sins, his mother's idolatry, and had solemnly engaged
against them in a declaration at Dunfermline, the 16th day of August 1650,
he has notwithstanding of all this gone on more avowedly in these sins
than all that were before him.
2.
For his great perjury, after he had twice at least solemnly subscribed
that Covenant (i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant--RB), he did so
presumptuously renounce, disown and command it to be burnt by the
hand of the hangman.
3.
Because he had rescinded all laws for establishing of that religion and
reformation engaged to in that Covenant, and enacted laws for establishing
its contrary, and is still working for the introducing of popery in these
lands.
4.
For commanding of armies to destroy the Lord's people who are
standing in their own just defence and for their privileges and rights
against tyrannies, oppressions and injuries of men; and for the blood he
has shed on fields and scaffolds and in seas of the people of God, upon
account of religion and righteousness (they being most willing in all other
things to render their obedience, if he had reigned and ruled them
according to his covenant and oath) more than all the kings that have been
before him in Scotland.
5.
That he has still been an enemy to, and a persecutor of the true
Protestants, a favourer and helper of the papists, both at home and abroad,
and has hindered, to the utmost of his power, the due execution of just
laws against them.
6.
For his relaxing of the kingdom by his frequent grant of remissions
and pardons for murderers (which is in the power of no king to do, being
expressly contrary to the law of God) which was the ready way to
embolden men to commit murders, to the defiling of the land with blood.
7.
To pass by all other things, his great and dreadful uncleanness of
adultery and incest, his drunkenness, his dissembling with God and man
and performing his promises where his engagements were sinful.'
Cargill then went on to pronounce sentence 'by the same authority, and
in the same name' on six of the king's leading officers of state: the Duke
of
York, brother of the king, 'for his idolatry'; the Duke of Monmouth, 'for
leading armies against the Lord's people, and for refusing, that morning at
Bothwell Bridge, a cessation of arms, for hearing and redressing their
injuries, wrongs and oppressions'; the Duke of Lauderdale, the king's
former commissioner in Scotland, 'for his dreadful blasphemy, his scoffing
at religion, his perjury, his adulteries and uncleanness, his gaming on the
Lord's Day, and his usual and ordinary cursing'; the Duke of Rothes,
Chancellor of Scotland and President of the Privy Council, 'for his perjury,
his adulteries and uncleanness; his allotting the Lord's Day for his
drunkenness; for the heathenish, barbarous and unheard-of cruelty,
whereof he was the chief author, contriver and commander, to that worthy
gentlemen David Hackston of Rathillet, and for his ordinary cursing,
swearing and drunkenness'; Sir George Mackenzie, the king's Advocate, 'for
his apostasy, his constant pleading against and persecuting to death the
people of God, his pleading for sorcerers, murderers and other criminals,
and his ungodly, erroneous, fantastic and blasphemous tenets'; and Thomas
Dalyell of Binns, general of the king's forces, 'for his leading armies and
commanding the killing, robbing, pillaging and oppressing of the Lord's
people; for his lewd and impious life led in adultery and uncleanness from
his youth, with contempt of marriage, which is an ordinance of God; and for
his other injurious deeds, in the exercise of his power'.
Cargill had now come to the close of his momentous work. 'I think', he
said as he concluded, 'none that acknowledge the Word of God can judge
these sentences to be unjust. And as the causes are just, so being done by
a minister of the gospel, and in such a way as the present persecution
would permit, the sentence is just; and there are no kings or ministers on
earth, without repentance of the persons, can reverse these sentences upon
any such account. God, who is the author of that ordinance, is the more
engaged to the ratifying of them, and all that acknowledge the Scriptures
of truth ought to acknowledge them.' And he ended by applying to the
case the following words of Scripture: 'Should he deal with our sister as
with an harlot? Would they deal with our God as with an idol? Should
they deal with his people as murderers and malefactors, and we not draw
out his sword against them?'
For Cargill the consequences of the Torwood excommunication were
incalculable. The news of it spread like wildfire throughout the country;
copies were posted up in prominent places in Edinburgh and other
principal towns, and the subjects of the sentence soon came to know of it.
In a day when ecclesiastical censures meant more than they do now, the
significance of the excommunication was not lost upon the authorities, for
they recognized that those people who believed that Cargill had divine
authority for his action would now regard themselves as loosed from their
allegiance. Cargill well knew the dangers to which he had exposed himself
and the outburst of fury to which he would be subjected. He had entered
on the work in the certain assurance that he was obeying God's command,
and his utterance was characterized at every step by assertions of the
divine authority. But there is evidence too that he was under intense
mental strain: he forgot at first to include the Duke of Lauderdale in the
sentence and was obliged to mention him separately in the afternoon, and
also during his discourse he referred mistakenly to St Ambrose as Bishop
of Lyons instead of Bishop of Milan. These were slips of which Bishop
Paterson of Edinburgh took full advantage when writing later that week to
Lauderdale expressing his horror at what Cargill had done. But the fact
that Cargill had taken this action was of itself of profound significance.
For
one thing it showed that it had been no empty gesture by a rash or
impetuous spirit, for deliberation and forethought characterized all
Cargill's
public actions. Nor was he inclined by nature to the sensational or
dramatic, or to any action which invited public attention. The mere fact
that his work that day had been uncharacteristic and alien to his natural
inclinations suggests strongly that he had been acting under a compulsion
which overbore his own nature and which he clearly recognized as
carrying divine authority.
Speaking some time later he said, 'I know I am and will be condemned
by many for what I have done, but condemn me who will, I know I am
approved of God, and am persuaded that what I have done on earth is
ratified in heaven; for if ever I knew the mind of God, and was clear in my
call to any piece of my generation-work, it was in that.'
...on any dispassionate analysis, **Cargill's action can be seen as being
fully in accord with the historic principles of Scottish Presbyterianism**.
As he had said, *all baptized persons -- all members of the visible church
(as to essence--RB), whatever their rank or station* -- were subject to the
discipline of the church and so were potentially liable to her ultimate
sanction. This had been made abundantly clear in the Reformation
standards of Knox and his successors, which had stressed the **essential**
unity and catholicity of the visible church (speaking here as to those who
profess the truth, notice 'essential' or as to essence--RB) and her
jurisdiction (only lawfully constituted churches have true jurisdiction;
thus
though Grant comes to the correct conclusion and is historically accurate he
has mixed his terms somewhat--RB) over all within her pale, high or low,
whatever their religious allegiance or affinities might be" (Maurice
Grant,
_No King But Christ: The Story of Donald Cargill_ [Evangelical Press, 1988],
pp. 135-139).
END QUOTE
This historical information is also noted and confirmed, beginning on page
408, in _The Covenants and the Covenanters: Covenants, Sermons, and
Documents of the Covenanted Reformation__ (James Kerr, ed.) and Shield's,
in _A Hind Let Loose_ (pp. 169-172), also recounts this episode; verifying
that the persecuted remnant of covenanted Presbyterian's saw Cargill's
"Torwood excommunication" as an action of faithfulness to Christ
and His
cause. Shield's also calls Cargill "a burning and shining light"
and notes
that shortly after this testimony he was "crowned with the glory of
martyrdom" (_A Hind Let Loose_, p. 172).
Furthermore, endnote 7 (found on page 258 of Grant's, _No King But Christ:
The Story of Donald Cargill_, right at the end of the longer quotation that
I
have provided above in the preceding paragraph) completely confirms my
position (regarding the taking of disciplinary actions against those outside
the bounds of a duly constituted church). Notice that Grant's references are
taken from _First Books of Discipline_ and _Order of Excommunication_;
"somewhat" *classic* statements of the Presbyterian position.
"'To discipline must all estates within this realm be subject, if they
offend,
as well the rulers as they that are ruled' (_First Books of Discipline_, in
Laing's _Works of Knox_, vol. II, p. 233). Similarly in the _Order of
Excommunication_ of 1569: 'All crimes that by the law of God deserve
death, deserve also excommunication from the society of Christ's church,
**whether the offender be papist or Protestant, for it is no reason that
under pretence of diversity of religion open impiety should be suffered in
the visible body of Christ Jesus**' (Ibid., vol. VI. p. 449, emphasis
added)."
So you see, your question "Gee, is that presbyterian?" should be
no cause
for "wonder;" for it would have been answered by the faithful
Presbyterians of the past with a resounding "YES! THIS MOST CERTAINLY
IS PRESBYTERIANISM." I must say, Doug, that I am surprised that you
have not read (or at least remembered) these citations from the _First
Books of Discipline_ and _Order of Excommunication_; though I am *not
surprised* that you were unaware of the history surrounding the second
Reformation excommunications which I have recounted above. I'll send
you a free copy of the _First Books of Discipline_ and the _Order of
Excommunication_ if you promise to read them.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>Reg, you are having trouble hitting the presbyterial ground with your
>covenantal hat.
REG BARROW WRITES:
I don't know what presbyterial *ground* you are talking about (and you
have not yet given any evidence that you even know where the
presbyterial *planet* is). On the other hand I have provided ample proof
that I adhere to classic Presbyterian thought -- whereas you have
provided nothing but a number of virtually useless one-liners, much
empty rhetoric and some wild-eyed (and unsubstantiated) charges. But I
am content to let the reader study the CLASSIC PRESBYTERIAN position
and determine who knows what they are talking about; that is why I have
included so many clues (throughout our correspondence) directing
individuals to Reformation source documents and books chronicling the
history of Reformation thought. Neopresbyterianism is dead, it just needs
to be buried by Paleopresbyterian truth. Get (and read) the books which I
have noted and you will see what I mean.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>You say you subscribe to the covenants. So did Charles II.
REG BARROW WRITES:
So what? What does an argument from abuse prove? It is not hard to see,
from the excommunications noted above (which I agree with), what my
position on Charles II is. Charles only added to his monumental
antichristian wickedness by sinfully perjuring himself by swearing a
covenant which he did not believe or intend to keep. Moreover, my
position on Charles II is that of the Covenanted Presbyterian Protestors of
the second Reformation. I have already publicly addressed this question in:
_Oliver Cromwell_ by Reg Barrow (Barrow's letters on Theonomy-L
exposing Cromwell as a covenant-breaker, a liar and a dictator [who
executed and imprisoned covenanted Presbyterian ministers -- so much
for his so-called toleration and his "pretended liberty of
conscience"]. These
letters also set forth some of the biblical basics of the covenanted
Reformation [of the seventeenth century] which gave us the Westminster
standards and the Solemn League and Covenant.)
FREE AT: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Crom.htm
For those that do not have access to the web, this material touching on the
Protester/Resolutioner controversy, along with other articles I have
authored is found in the book _John Knox, Oliver Cromwell, God's Law and
the Reformation of Civil Government_.
DOUG WILSON WRITES:
>For the covenants,
>
>Douglas Wilson
>Credenda/Agenda
REG BARROW WRITES:
You still haven't answered which covenants you are for and how you are
for them; or any of the *many* other questions which I asked you
throughout our exchanges (I challenge the reader to look back over all the
questions which Mr. Wilson has left unanswered, for his silence tells as
great a story as his replies). You seem to like to attach labels to yourself
which you do not understand, while stigmatizing others falsely, based on
your ignorance of Scripture and history. I guess that is one of the most
disappointing aspects of our interaction in these letters -- for I had
expected so much more from you. You exhibit almost no knowledge of the
doctrines and history which we have discussed, you have not answered
even a fraction of the questions which I asked you (though I have given
detailed answers to your questions and will be providing more in books
which are presently being written), you show virtually no familiarity with
the many source documents of the Reformation which are now available,
you wildly slander us with ridiculous charges (that apply better to yourself
and not at all to us), and beyond all this you provide no proof to back up
your erroneous and imaginary charges and assertions. Moreover, you
exacerbate the situation by remaining stubborn and obstinate in your
error to the extent that you will not even take one of the many free books
which I have offered you throughout our discourses -- not even to try and
refute them (Luke 6:39; Matt. 23:34).
Calvin faced a similar situation in his day and gave an useful reply, with
which I fully concur. Calvin's rebuke of those who falsely charged him with
schism can be appropriately directed at you; for you have a tendency (on
one hand) to adopt *portions* of Rome's view of the church, schism,
separation and excommunication.
START QUOTE:
"But the most serious charge of all is that we have attempted to
dismember the Bride of Christ. Were that true, both you and the whole
world might well regard us as past redemption. But I will not admit the
charge, *unless you can make out that the Bride of Christ is dismembered
by those who desire to present her as a chaste virgin to Christ; who are
animated by a degree of holy zeal to preserve her spotless for Christ; who,
seeing her polluted by base seducers, recall her to conjugal fidelity; who
unhesitatingly wage war against all the adulterers whom they detect
laying traps for her chastity*. And what but this have we done? Had not
your factious Church attempted and even violated her chastity by strange
doctrines? Had she not been violently prostituted by your numberless
superstitions? Had she not been defiled by that vilest species of adultery,
the worship of images? *And because, I suppose, we did not suffer you so
to insult the sacred chamber of Christ, we are said to have wounded his
Bride!* But I tell you that this wound, *of which you falsely accuse us*, is
observed not dimly among yourselves -- a wound not only of the Church,
but of Christ himself, who is there beheld miserably rent. How can the
Church adhere to her Spouse, while she fails to hold him safe? For where
is the safety of Christ when the glory of his justice, and holiness, and
wisdom is transferred elsewhere?
But it appears that, before we kindled the strife, all was tranquillity and
perfect peace! True: among pastors, and also among the common people,
ignorance and indolence had been at work so that there were almost no
controversies respecting religion. But in the schools, how lustily did
sophists brawl! You cannot, therefore, take credit for a tranquil kingdom,
when there was tranquillity for no other reason than that Christ was silent.
I admit that, *on the revival of the gospel, great disputes arose where all
was quietness before. But that is unjustly imputed to our side, who, in the
whole course of their actions, desired nothing but that religion be revived
and that the Churches, which discord had scattered and dispersed, might
be gathered together into true unity*. And not to go back upon old
matters, what did they lately decline to accept, just to procure peace for
the Churches? But all their efforts are rendered vain by your opposition.
For while they desire peace, that with it the kingdom of Christ may
flourish, you on the other hand think that all which is gained to Christ is
lost to you, and it is not strange that you strenuously resist. And you have
artifices by which you can in one day overturn all that they accomplish for
the glory of Christ in many months. I will not overwhelm you with words,
because one word will dispatch the matter. **The Reformers offered to
render an account of their doctrine**. If overcome in argument, they do
not decline to give way. Whose fault then is it that the Church does not
enjoy perfect peace and the light of truth? Go now, and charge us with
sedition for not permitting the Church to be quiet!
But lest you might omit anything which might tend to prejudice our
cause, since many sects have sprung up during these few years, *you with
your usual candour lay the blame upon us*. But note with what fairness or
even plausibility. If we deserve hatred on this account, the Christian name
also must of old have deserved it from the ungodly. Therefore either cease
to molest us on this subject, or openly declare that the Christian religion,
which begets so many tumults in the world, ought to be banished from the
memory of man. It ought not to hurt our cause in the least that Satan has
tried in all ways to impede the work of Christ. **It would be more to the
point to enquire which party has devotedly opposed itself to all the sects
which have arisen. It is plain that, while you were idle and fast asleep, we
alone bore the whole weight**.
The Lord grant, Sadolet (Doug--RB), that you and all your party may at
length perceive ***that the only true bond of ecclesiastical unity consists
in
this, that Christ the Lord, who has reconciled us to God the Father, gather
us out of our present dispersion into the fellowship of his body, that so,
through his one (!!!--RB) Word and Spirit, we may join together with one
heart and one soul***."
(John Calvin, "Reply by John Calvin to the letter by Cardinal Sadolet
to the
Senate and People of Geneva" _Corpus Reformatorum_, V ["Calvini
opera
quae supersunt omnia"], [pp. 369-416 for the Latin text], as translated
and
cited in _Calvin: Theological Treatises_, [The Westminster Press, 1954], pp.
255-256, emphases added.)
This debate has also been published separately and can be found in our
photocopy edition of _Calvin's Selected Works_ [in volume 1] or in our
photocopy edition of just this reply [with Sadolet's letter] which I have
titled _Defending the Reformation_. Baker Book House also released a
softcover edition, titled _A Reformation Debate_, in 1976, which is now out
of print but may be available in some libraries.).
END QUOTE
Calvin also said,
"I come now to our doctrine. Many people condemn it out of prejudice,
without hearing or exploring it. They are too occupied with some opinion
or other that totally dulls the sharp edge of their minds. I am not going to
mention the insults and even criminal acts that are imputed to us in an
effort to keep everyone from tasting our doctrine. Only one thing can be
charged against us, that we strive to call back to their own banner
(namely, the Word of God) all those who are counted as belonging to Christ
but who have been wandering about wretchedly. We are also bringing it
about that all controversy over the worship of God is settled on the basis
of
his Word, so that each person may believe what is established as being
from God.
What of our adversaries? They are making a counterfeit church, a sort
of shield of Ajax, so that they may hide safely behind its empty facade.
The prophets and apostles faced the same situation when they had to deal
with men who were usurping, by their wicked beliefs, the very name of
the church of its highest authority.
We acknowledge a church that rests on the sure foundation of *prophetic
and apostolic doctrine*, whose single and unchanging head is and remains
Christ. The church in which God's Word does not rule is adulterous. **On
this basis we conclude that the worship of God must be instituted in
accordance with his command. Nothing handed down or introduced by
men can be tolerated. It is for God alone to fix the law in our consciences.
Only he has the right to ordain what he wants us to do.**
This causes people to complain: "You have destroyed the statutes of
holy
mother church." We teach, following Isaiah and with Christ as our
authority, that God is worshiped in vain when worshiped by the commands
of men. James likewise says that there is one lawgiver, who is able to save
and to destroy. Any embellishment added in the name of worshiping God
will be found, on closer inspection, to be a pure fiction invented by the
human brain."
(John Calvin, "A Letter of Exhortation and Defense, Addressed to a
Certain
Pontiff," _Corpus Reformatorum_, vol. 38, part I, pp. 181-184, as
translated
and cited in _Calvin's Ecclesiastical Advice_ [Westminster/John Knox Press,
1991], pp. 55-56, emphases added).
Moreover, as can be clearly seen in the Covenanters' defense of their own
position, you would have been considered the schismatic *and* separatist,
because you are the cause of the breach, in that you have separated from
the truth. See _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the
Revolution Church_ by Andrew Clarkson, especially the chapter on schism,
for proof of this assertion. This chapter is FREE on our web page under the
following description and URL:
"The Reformed View of Schism" by Andrew Clarkson (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 promotion of unbiblical ecumenism and place this
doctrine 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 short treatment of this
subject.)
FREE at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Schism.htm
Additionally, you publicly ridicule me with with false charges (when I told
the truth) and jest about my use of *telepathy* (and you wonder why
people get the impression that I had not read *any* of Frame's book) and
yet you do far worse yourself (in lying against the truth and fabricating
charges which you do not even attempt to defend). This is just rank
hypocrisy. In these things you prove yourself the separatist and
schismatic, destroying the very unity of the church (which is a commanded
duty [1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 3:8, etc.]) that you
think
you defend. Our reasons for warning others of your schismatic behavior
are well stated by Shields (regarding the prelates of his day),
"That party in a reformed church, which having overturned her
reformation, hath shut out, laid aside, and persecuted away sound
adherers thereunto, both ministers and professors, and will not admit
ministers to officiate, but upon sinful terms of compliance with their way,
are schismatics... therefore they are the schismatics to be withdrawn from,
and their way is schism, which we are bound to extirpate in the covenant.
Those who separate from a church whose principles and practices are
subservient to that church's true union and communion, and right
establishment, are properly schismatics... but their principles are stated
in
opposition to her purity and reformation. Those who innovate the worship
and government, owned and established in a true church, are schismatics.
Finally, for union's sake, and to avoid schism in the body, we must
withdraw from them."
"But they must be such as we can own church communion with in the
ordinances administrated by them, as to the matter of them. Otherwise if
they pervert and corrupt their ministry, by preaching and maintaining
errors, either in doctrine, worship, discipline, or government, contrary to
the Scripture, our confessions, and principles of our covenanted
reformation, and contradictory to our testimony founded thereupon, and
agreeable thereunto, maintaining errors condemned thereby, or
condemning truths maintained thereby, we must withdraw from them. (cf.
Deut. 13:5,8; Prov. 19:27; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3, 5)... Hence we must not
hear false teachers, who, in preaching and prayer, bring forth false
doctrine contrary to the principles of our reformation... and vent there
bitter invectives against presbyterian government, condemn the work of
reformation, and inveigh against the covenant, and so teach and encourage
people to follow them in open perjury, and condemning all our testimony,
as nothing but treason and sedition."
"But with those that oppose, suppress, reproach, and abandon this
testimony, we cannot own this organical communion, in this broken state
of the church... (The testimony includes those who own and adhere to--RB)
the true received principles of the church of Scotland, in doctrine,
worship,
discipline and government, founded upon the written word of God, and
whatsoever declarations or testimonies, former or later, particular or more
general, are agreeable thereunto; though differing from us in some of the
integral and not essential parts of our testimony against the enemies of our
covenanted reformation. But with such as deny or decline from it, by
schism or defection, or compliance with the enemies thereof, we cannot
own this congregational communion, in this broken state of the church."
(Alexander Shields, _A Hind Let Loose_ [Still Waters Revival Books, 1797
edition reprinted 1996], pp. 265, 293, 294, 309, 310, 311).
Our (i.e. the Reformed Presbyterian) terms of communion (cf. Greg Price's
19 lectures on cassette called _Terms of Communion_) and the
requirements for membership in a duly constituted church (cf. Greg Price's
cassette _Biblical Church Membership_), mirroring the old Covenanter
testimony given by Shields in his last comment (cited above), have long
been published and known. I listed them in my second reply to you, so you
have no excuse as to our *exact* position concerning church and
sacramental communion (cf. "Terms of Ministerial and Christian
Communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church," as listed in the
Reformed Presbytery's _The Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Whole
of Our Covenanted Reformation_ (SWRB reprint 1995, [1761, 1876], p.
216). This makes your recent sin of calling us "perfectionistic and
schismatic anabaptists" all the more grievous, because it is a sin
against
more light. Hear the rebuke of _Westminster Larger Catechism_ on this
point,
Question 150: Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in
themselves, and in the sight of God?
Answer: All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but
some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more
heinous in the sight of God than others.
Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more
heinous than others?
Answer: Sins receive their aggravations, From the persons offending: if
they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession,
gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be
followed by others. From the parties offended: if immediately against God,
his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit,
his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as
we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints,
particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the
common good of all or many. From the nature and quality of the offense: if
it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments,
contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks
forth
in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if
against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of
conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil
punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and
engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, willfully,
presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently,
obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance. From
circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord's day, or other times of
divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to
prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of
others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.
Also, as previously noted, these terms of communion were adopted by the
session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton on March 22, 1996.
By all six of these terms I (and all other Reformed Presbyterians) are
bound to *testify for* the true doctrine, worship, government and
discipline set forth in Scripture (i.e. Divine Right Presbyterianism and all
that is included in it, addressing every aspect of life). We are also bound
to
*testify against* all deviation from these truths (whether set forth by John
Frame, yourself or any other individual, church or nation that opposes the
Crown Rights of King Jesus).
Examples of such testimony-bearing abound. I will cite only one, because it
continues to testify against both Frame and you (as covenant-breakers,
schismatics, idolaters, etc.). In Andrew Clarkson's _Plain Reasons for
Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church in Scotland_ (Still
Waters Revival Books, reprinted 1996, [1731]) we read on pages 182-184,
"It is also evident... that Schism from our covenanted Church consists
in
this, to wit, When Members of the Church make Defection to the contrary
Part, that is in plain Terms, when they associate or incorporate with,
assist
and defend Parties against whom the Covenant was made and sworn, viz.
Papists, Prelatists, and the Underlings, Heretics, etc. the common Enemies
of Reformation; and fall from the Duties of preserving and propagating the
Reformation of the three Kingdoms (which now include the churches in
Canada and the USA because the church is one moral person--RB); and
refuse to join with, assist and defend those, who adhere to the Covenants,
in the necessary Work of Renewing them, for Extirpation of Popery,
Prelacy, Erastianism, Superstition, Heresy, Error and Prophaneness, and
whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the Power of Godliness; and
for re-establishing, preserving, and propagating the covenanted
Reformation, once happily established in these Lands, and sworn unto by
our Covenants.
Schism from our covenanted Church consists also in this, viz. When
Members, Ministers or others, give themselves to a detestable Indifferency
and Neutrality, in the Cause of God, namely, in the preserving and
propagating the covenanted Reformation of these three kingdoms; that is
to say, When Men are like so many Gallio's in the Cause of God, preferring
worldly Ease, Honour and Wealth, their own Interest to the Interest of
Christ, become easy, whether the covenanted Reformation in these Lands
sink or swim; and, from a cowardly Disposition in some, and a malignant,
perfidious, Temper in others, coalesce and accord in apostatizing from the
Articles of the Covenant foresaid (i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant--
RB), the Cause of God, and its honest-hearted friends; and frighted from
both, as if they thought it both Sin and Shame to have it said, that they
carried any warm Side to either the one or the other. I say, All Members of
the National Church, who, on Account of any Combination, Persuasion, or
Terror, and Fear or worldly Loss, or Sufferings of whatsoever Kind, are
guilty in any of these two Cases, are also guilty of making SCHISM from the
covenanted Church, as is clearly manifest by the 6th Article of our Solemn
League.
Now, seeing this Church is notoriously and grossly guilty of making
Defection to the contrary Part, by altering, or rather departing from the
legal Establishment 1649, changing the Terms of Communion, and by going
into the legal Establishment of the incorporating Union with England,
whereby English Erastian Supremacy, and English Popish Ceremonies
(Frame especially!--RB) are established; and the Jurants, by the
Abjuration-Oath (abjuring the Solemn League and Covenant; that is
claiming that the SL&C has no lawful authority over the individual,
church
and state--RB), have solemnly ratified that Union, as proven above: Then it
plainly follows, by a just Consequence, that this Revolution-Church (whom
the modern Presbyterians have followed in renouncing the covenanted
Reformation and the faithful Covenanters--RB) is not only guilty of Schism
(and the Jurants most hainously guilty by their Oath) on Account of the
foresaid Defection and sinful Deserting of the foresaid Establishment, etc.
But also in respect of Neutrality and Indifferency in the Cause of God, in
never making any suitable Endeavours to have that glorious Work revived
and restored, or her own lost Ground retrieved; and so she is allowed to
apply the Hainousness of Schism, the bitter Effects, and lamentable
Concomitants thereof, to herself, which she endeavours to father upon, and
apply unto Presbyterian Dissenters (times don't change much, Doug!--RB).
Any who have rejected our Covenants, and design not willfully to trample
on that Reformation, may be fully satisfied as to this Sense of the Solemn
League and Covenant, from the printed Acts of the Venerable Assemblies,
Anno 1645, Sess. 14 p. 283. 1647, Sess. 15. p. 334 and 1648, Sess. 21. p.
391, 392, in their Explications of that 6th Article of the Solemn League and
Covenant."
After reading the Acts referred to above (which are available in our
reprinted edition of _The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of
Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649_) and interpreting them
according to *original intent* of the banders, please tell me Doug: Are you
still *really* "for the Covenants"? If you can honestly answer
yes, most of
your present practice and belief *must* change -- or you make yourself a
liar.
By the way, the type of innovations in worship which Frame would
introduce into the Presbyterian church are also condemned throughout
_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_. One of
many examples of excommunications which included the charge of
"pressing the Kirk with novations (innovations--RB) in the worship of
God,
and for sundry other haynous offences, and enormites" can be found of
pages 18-19 of this book. In this particular example you will find the
"Sentence of deposition and excommunication against Mr. John
Spottiswood, pretended Archbishop of St. Andrews..." and many others.
Finally, to your charges that we are the separatists, I reply, using the
faithful words of Macmillan and Mackneil in their "Secession from the
Revolution Church" (Kerr, ed., _The Covenants and the Covenanters:
Covenants, Sermons, and Documents of the Covenanted Reformation_, pp.
440-442),
START QUOTE
"Let none say, That what we have done here flows from ambition to exalt
ourselves above others, for as we have great cause, so we desire grace
from the Lord, to be sensible of what accession we have with others in the
land, to the provoking of His Spirit, in not walking as becomes the Gospel,
according to our Solemn Engagements, neither proceeds it from irritation
or inclination (by choice or pleasure) to discover our mother's nakedness
or wickedness, or that we love to be of a contentious spirit, for our
witness
is in heaven (whatever the world may say) that it would be the joy of our
hearts, and as it were a resurrection from the dead, to have these
grievances redressed and removed, and our backsliding and breaches
quickly and happily healed, but it is to exoner consciences by protesting
against the defections of the land, especially of Ministers: and seeing we
can neither with safety to our persons, nor freedom in our consciences,
compear before the Judicatories, while these defections are not
acknowledged and removed, so we must, so long decline them, and hereby
do decline them, as unfaithful judges in such matters: in regard they have,
in so great a measure, yielded up the priviledges of the Church into the
hands and will of her enemies, and carried on a course of defection contrar
to the Scriptures, our Covenants, and the acts and constitutions of this our
Church. And hereby we further protest and testify against whatever they
may conclude, or determine, in their ecclesiastick courts by acts,
ratifications, sentences, censures, &c., that have been, or shall be
made or
given out by them, and protest that the same may be made void and null,
and not interpreted as binding to us or any who desire firmly to adhere to
the Covenanted work of Reformation.
But let none look upon what we have here said, to be a vilipending or
rejecting of the free, lawful, and rightly constitute courts of Christ, for
we
do acknowledge such to have been among the first most effectual means
appointed of God for preserving the purity and advancing the power of
reformation in the Church of Christ; the sweet fruits and blessed effects
whereof, this Church hath sometimes enjoyed, and which we have been
endeavouring and seeking after, and are this day longing for.
We detest and abhor that principle of casting off the ministry, wherewith
we are odiously and maliciously reproached by these who labour to fasten
upon us the hateful names of schismaticks, separatists, despisers of the
Gospel: but, herein as they do betray their enmity to the cause we own, so
till they bring in their own principles and practices, and ours also, and
try
them by the law and testimony, the measuring line of the sanctuary, the
Word of God, and the practice of this Church, when the Lord keeped house
with, and rejoiced over her as a bridegroom over his bride, they can never
prove us schismaticks or separatists from the kirk of Scotland upon the
account of our non-union with the backslidden multitude, ministers and
others.
Finally, that we may not be judged by any, as persons of an infallible
spirit, and our actions above the cognisance of the judicatories of Christ's
appointment: we appeal to the first free, faithful and rightly constitute
Assembly in this Church, to whose decision and sentence in the things
lybelled against us we willingly refer ourselves, and crave liberty to
extend and enlarge this our Protestation, Declinature, and Appeal as need
requires.
END QUOTE
It is interesting to note that among the reasons given for separation from
the apostate Revolution church we find: defection from attainments,
defection from and ignoring the covenants (civilly and ecclesiastically),
not
renewing the covenants (National and Solemn League), Erastianism, failure
to explicitly and by formal act proclaim the Divine Right of Presbytery,
"not confirming and ratifying the Acts of the (faithful--RB)
Assemblies,"
"admitting in many places, ignorant and scandalous persons to the
Lord's
table," etc.
So, in short, what has our little "dust up" proved? I think that
the reader
can be the judge of that; but one thing is certain: We continue the
covenanted Reformed Presbyterian (i.e. the most classic form of
Protestantism) testimony, while you, at present, continue the defection
(not even up to the backslidden standards of the Revolution church --
especially concerning worship!).
May the our Lord have mercy on you and grant you repentance.
For Christ's Christ's Crown and Covenant,
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: +1 780 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 780 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
P.S. I have decided that I would be willing to engage in a debate with you
in your _Disputatio_ column (even in the short two page format) if you will
agree to the following three stipulations:
1. We both get exactly the same amount of space (by word count) in the
debate.
2. You agree not to edit anything that I write, if I stay within the word
count limit which we agree to in point one.
3. We agree as to what the topic of debate will be in its exact wording.
Are you willing to step into the ring under these conditions?
P.P.S. In our previous correspondence you had asked four questions
regarding worship which I have yet to address. You said, "I asked
about
David and the showbread, and bowing in the house of Rimmon, and
worshipping in a synagogue, and sacrificing only to the Lord in the high
places." I will take up each question, in order, giving *short*
answers to
each below. I've also answered one question you have raised outside of
our
discussions here. This question has to do with using "Hezekiah
songs" as a
warrant for uninspired hymns in worship.
In answer to "David and the showbread."
I don't see how transgressing a ceremonial law (in the most extraordinary
of circumstances -- "hard cases make bad laws") to fulfill a moral
law (i.e.
the sixth commandment -- "The duties required in the sixth commandment
are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of
ourselves and others..." _Westminster Larger Catechism_ answer 135)
would somehow overthrow or annul the duty to obey another moral law
(i.e. the second commandment or the regulative principle). All 10
commentaries I checked are in essential agreement, but I think that
Matthew Henry best gets to the heart of the matter when he writes,
"*Ritual observances* must give way to *moral obligations*; and that
may
be done in a case of necessity, which otherwise may not be done" (_A
Commentary of the Whole Bible_ volume 5, p. 463, Henry is commenting
on Mark 2:25-26, emphases added). Calvin (on Matt. 12:3) writes "that
the
*ceremonies* of the Law are not violated where there is no infringement of
godliness (i.e. the moral law--RB)" for "if David had attempted to
do what
was contrary to (moral--RB) law, it would have been in vain for Christ to
plead his example" (emphasis added). Matthew Poole, on 1 Sam. 20:5,
states that ceremonial enactments "must give place to the great law of
necessity and charity (the law of love or the moral law--RB), because God
will have *mercy* preferred before *sacrifice*" (emphasis Poole's).
"The
ceremonies of the Law are not against the love of our neighbour" (The
1599 _Geneva Bible_, sidenote on Matt. 12:8). Or, finally, as our Lord said,
in answering this question (and in rebuking the *real* Pharisees; those
who added to the moral law and burdened men's consciences with man-
made innovations and ceremonies), "But if ye had known what this
meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have
condemned the guiltless" (Matt. 12:7).
In answer to "bowing in the house of Rimmon."
Your question about Naaman's "bowing in the house of Rimmon" is
answered in Anderson's _Alexander and Rufus_ on page 15. Anderson
writes,
"They who have justly withdrawn from the communion of any particular
church on account of its corruptions; and yet allow themselves in the
practices of occasional communion with the church in her public
ordinances, are far more involved in the guilt of its corruptions, than
Naaman the Syrian was, in the guilt of worshipping Rimmon, when he
bowed in the temple of that idol: for they cannot pretend, that communion
with such a church is no end of their attendance on her public ordinances;
as Naaman pleaded, that his intention, in going to the temple of Rimmon
and being present there, was not to worship the idol, but to serve his
master. Grotius, indeed, and some other commentators, justify or excuse
the conduct of Naaman. But more candid interpreters hold that the
indulgence, which Naaman desired, was unlawful; that there was such an
appearance of evil, such a countenancing of idolatry in it, as he ought to
have avoided, that his presence in the temple of Rimmon in the time of
worship of that idol, was a dangerous example to others; that, on such an
occasion, he ought either to have obtained leave of absence from his
master, or to have quitted his service; and that even his desire of pardon
intimated his consciousness of something sinful in this matter."
Matthew Henry takes a stronger line on Naaman's dissimulation, but
ultimately tempers it with his usual pastoral insight. See Henry's
commentary (volume 2, p. 716) on 2 Kings 5:18. I especially like his
following comment, which faithfully answers your question, because in the
final sentence he uses the words "house of Rimmon" analogously for
sin.
"If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any known sin,
which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a
defeasance (i.e. a making void or breaking--RB) of his covenant. We must
cast away all our transgressions and *not except any house of Rimmon*"
(emphasis added).
For Calvin's more lengthy response to your "Naaman question," see
"A
Short Treatise Setting Forth What the Faithful Man Must Do When He is
Among Papists and He Knows the Truth of the Gospel" (1543). This
article
can be found in the book _Come Out From Among Them: The 'Anti-
Nicodemite' Writings of John Calvin_ (Protestant Heritage Publications,
forthcoming), pp. 70-73 (in the proof copy).
In answer to "worshipping in a synagogue."
You questioned us (Greg Price and me) regarding "worshipping in a
synagogue" in an attempt to weaken the force of the regulative
principle. I
would suggest that you read Bushell's treatment of "Psalmody and
Synagogue Worship" in his book _The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case
for Exclusive Psalmody_. This is found on pages 68-74 of the second
edition. Though this was written before Steve Schlissel started pushing his
novel views on worship, it does a good job of shooting holes in Steve's
over-simplification of the matter. Besides noting some of the differences in
synagogue services and those of the early church (destroying the one-to-
one identification that Schlissel implies throughout his arguments against
the regulative principle), Bushell writes (and shows) that "the temple
rather than the synagogue is the ultimate source of a number of the most
important aspects of Christian worship" (p. 72). He also shows that
"the
primary function of the synagogue was instruction, not worship. The
Christian Church, however, was a replacement for both the synagogue and
Temple, and as such it combined in one structure the instructional aspects
of the former and the ritualistic aspect of the latter' (p. 71) -- of
course,
also incorporating the changes which the New Testament era brought
about.
Some useful notes on the synagogue are also found on pages 93-94 in
Samuel Rutherford's _The Divine Right of Church Government and
Excommunication: or a Peaceable Dispute for the Perfection of the Holy
Scripture in Point of Ceremonies and Church Government; in Which the
Removal of the Service Book is Justified..._ (1646). Gillespie's _Dispute
Against English Popish Ceremonies_ (Naphtali edition) deals with the some
aspects of synagogue worship on pages 290-292 and Gillespie even
comments, "Yet the synagogue was tied to observe those (and no other
than those) ceremonies which the word prescribed" (p. 292).
It is also interesting to me that if the synagogue was not regulated by
some kind of divine command (in keeping with the second commandment
which is of perpetual moral force), which was not recorded *for us* in
Scripture (which was sometimes the case in the Old Testament economy,
see Greg Price's outline below),
"1. That there was no such thing as an uninspired hymn ever sung; and
2. That there was no such thing as an instrumental accompaniment to
singing ever employed in the ancient synagogue."
(Robert Nevin, _Instrumental Music in Christian Worship_, 1873, pp. 15-
16).
All those years of supposed "de-regulation" in the synagogue and
no
innovations: astounding! Give our modern anti-regulativists and
pretended-regulativists a decade and you'll have all sorts of innovations
(from instruments and man-made hymns to dance, drama, responsive
readings, women preachers, cool-aid communion and a host of other
heresies). Were the Jews really that much more holy than men today (in
restraining themselves from introducing innovations and violating the
second commandment); or did they understand something that the modern
anti-regulativists don't?
On the question of the origin of the synagogue and similar ploys to
undermine the historic (classic) Protestant/Presbyterian defense of the
second commandment (i.e. the regulative principle), Dr. R.D. Anderson, in
_Prophetic Singing in the Corporate Worship of the Church_ (unpublished
manuscript, p. 13), has written,
START QUOTE
Modern scholarship has come up with a variety of theories regarding the
origin of the synagogue. It has been dated from the time of the exile, from
the time of Ezra, or even later (long footnote not cited here). What enables
scholars to come up with such divergent theories is the fact that we have
very little information to go on.
What we do have, however, is a common tradition in the first century that
dated synagogue worship back to the time of Moses. Josephus says that
Moses ordained "that every week men should desert their other
occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and
accurate knowledge of it" (_Ag. Ap._ 2:175). Likewise, Philo traces the
practice in his own day of meeting in synagogues every sabbath, to the
command of Moses to set aside the sabbath for the study of the Scriptures
(_Vit. Mos._ 2.215-16; cf. _Op. Mund._ 128).
Important for us is the fact that this explanation of the origin of
synagogues is also recorded in the New Testament. When James delivered
his speech at the council of Jerusalem, he noted that "Moses from
ancient
generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the
synagogues every Sabbath," Acts 15:21. This explanation also fits in
with
what we discussed above concerning the command of Lev. 23:3 for every
Israelite to assemble every Sabbath to worship God.
END QUOTE
Since Greg Price is now preparing a book-length defense of the regulative
principle, in light of some of the modern attacks on it (including answers
to
questions surrounding the synagogue and its institution), I will not
elaborate further at this time. But here is the outline for Greg's book (as
it
stands at present):
_Defending the Reformation Regulative Principle of Worship; or, Was
Synagogue Worship Regulated By God's Revealed Word?_
1. The Second Commandment (like the First Commandment) is moral,
and therefore of perpetual and universal obligation having been written
upon the hearts of all men from the point of creation (i.e. God has written
upon the hearts of all men not only that He alone is to be worshipped as is
taught in the First Commandment, but also that He is to be worshipped
only by those means which He has authorized as is taught in the Second
Commandment).
2. The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is simply an articulation
of the Second Commandment, and therefore is morally binding upon all
people from the first man to the last. Since the RPW is a part of the moral
law of God, it cannot be limited to the Ceremonial Law. To the contrary,
tabernacle/temple worship, synagogue worship, and all public worship
must be regulated by the Second Commandment/RPW.
3. The RPW defined and defended from Scripture (both the Old
Testament and the New Testament).
4. The RPW expounded in history (especially its articulation from the
First and Second Reformation).
5. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance having been instituted as a day
of rest and and worship at the creation of the world (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-
11). The Sabbath was observed as a weekly day of rest and worship prior
to the institution of tabernacle worship (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 16:23-30). Since
God gave one day each week to be dedicated to Himself in rest and
worship, and since God regulated worship from the very beginning of time
(Gen. 4:1-7), it is therefore inferred that God's people must have used only
worship authorized by God before the regulated worship of the tabernacle
was instituted.
6. Worship was in fact regulated by God's authorization prior to the
tabernacle/temple, even though one may search in vain to find the original
and explicit authorization of God within the pages of Scripture.
a. Blood sacrifices were required by God, though no explicit
authorization was recorded (Gen. 4:1-7). Thus, it must be inferred that
God revealed His will concerning blood sacrifices to Adam, Eve, Cain and
Abel, but did not record His original authorization in Scripture.
b. Clean animals were offered in sacrifice by Noah rather than
unclean animals (Gen. 8:20-21). Where does God specifically authorize
clean animals and forbid unclean animals in sacrifice? Or where does God
identify which animals are clean and which are unclean prior to the
Levitical law? It must be inferred that the Lord revealed His will
concerning clean and unclean animals to Noah, though He did not record
the original prescription in Scripture.
c. Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God, and thus
performed worship on God's behalf (Gen. 14:18-20). Where is the office of
priest instituted prior to Melchizedek? What were his duties as a priest?
Abraham paid tithes unto Melchizedek as the priest of God (Heb. 7:1-10).
Where is there any warrant for tithing stated in Scripture prior to
Abraham? Therefore, it must be inferred that God gave explicit instruction
concerning these matters related to worship, although these instructions
are not specifically stated in the biblical record.
d. In like manner, God's people faithfully gathered each Sabbath to
worship the Lord in synagogues subsequent to the institution of
tabernacle/temple worship. Where is synagogue worship specifically
authorized in Scripture? It must likewise be inferred that it was explicitly
regulated by God (since He authorized their meeting in such assemblies
each Sabbath), although that regulation (like the examples above) is not
explicitly recorded in Scripture.
7. Even if (for the sake of argument) tabernacle/temple worship alone
was explicitly regulated in the Old Testament, that does not alter the fact
that New Covenant worship is regulated (according to the Second
Commandment and the RPW) by the explicit precepts, the approved
examples, and the good and neccesary deductions derived from Scripture,
the light of nature, and the general rules of God's Word even as all public
worship was regulated in the Old Testament (Mk. 7:6-13; Jn. 4:24; 1 Cor.
11:16; 1 Cor. 14:26-40; Eph. 5:19; Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 4:2; Heb. 10:1 etc).
8. The example of the Lord in worshipping in synagogues during His
ministry provides no proof that the Lord approved of unregulated worship
outside of temple worship. It must first be demonstrated that the
synagogue worship which He attended was not regulated by God's
revelation (by revelation not recorded in Scripture). The Lord did indeed
forbid His disciples from sitting under the ministry of heretical scribes
and
Pharisees (Mt. 15:13,14; 16:6,12; 23:2-36), but He did not forbid His
disciples from attending faithful synagogue worship.
9. It has been claimed by the opponents of the RPW: "Jesus is our
RPW." We agree. However, it is only by His revelation that we know
Christ as our RPW.
10. What is the biblical alternative to the RPW? All views of worship
principally lead either to Rome or to Westminster. Thus, that which
prevents churches from becoming epistemologically consistent with their
Romish views of worship is ultimately preference, expediency, and mere
pragmatism, not biblical principle.
Lord willing this book will be ready sometime in the near future and if I
remember I will send you a complimentary review copy.
In answer to "sacrificing only to the Lord in the high places."
I see nothing in what took place at the high places, rightly considered,
which militates against the regulative principle correctly understood. The
high places were
"places of worship, specifically of idolatrous worship. So the title
was
transferred from the elevation to the sanctuary on the elevation (1 Kings
11:7; 14:23) cf. the burning of the 'high place' in 2 Kings 23:15), and so
came to be used of any idolatrous shrine, whether constructed on an
elevation or not (note 2 Kings 16:4; 2 Chron. 28:4 the 'high places are
distinguished from the 'hills'). So the high places in the cities (2 Kings
17:9;
2 Chron. 21:11 [LXX] could have stood anywhere, while in Ezk. 16:16 a
portable structure seems to be in point" (_International Standard Bible
Dictionary_ hereafter _ISBD_, (Hendrickson, 1939, 1956, reprinted 1994,
vol. 3, p. 1390).
Furthermore, the _ISBD_ notes,
"The opposition to the high places had many motives. When used for the
worship of other gods their objectionable character is obvious, but even
the worship of Jeh in the high places was intermixed with heathen
practices (Hos. 4:14, etc.). In Amos. 5:21-24, etc., sacrifice in the high
places
is denounced because it is regarded as a substitute for righteousness in
exactly the same way that sacrifice in the Temple is denounced in Jer.
7:21-24. Or, *sacrifice in the high places may be denounced under the best
of conditions, because in violation of the law of one sanctuary* (2 Chr.
33:17, etc.)" (pp. 1391, emphasis added).
One aspect of this question, with which we must be careful if we are to
determine a faithful answer to the biblical view of the "high
places" (and
which may be confusing to those who have not yet be given better insight
into the regulative principle worship -- at least to the level which most of
the Reformers seemed to enjoy), has to do with the historical chronology of
worship in "high places". For example, "in 1 Kings the
practice of using the
high places is treated as legitimate before the construction of the Temple
(1 Kings 3:2-4), *but after that it is condemned unequivocally*"
(_ISBD_, p.
1391, emphasis added).
In short, worship (contrary to the second commandment or what we call
the regulative principle) in the high places brought national judgement
upon the covenanted people of God in the OT (for much Scriptural
corroboration see the second column, page 1393, of volume 3 in the _ISBD_
article on the "high places"). Our modern "Reformed" and
"evangelical"
communities are much like Israel (to give the moderns the benefit of the
doubt) when she worshiped Jehovah in the high places. "Reformed"
and
"evangelical" defection from biblical and Reformation attainments
(concerning worship) is of such long standing and has become so much a
matter of habit (or the traditions of the elders, Mark 7:9) that she
denounces those faithful servants of Christ sent to rebuke her and
overthrow her idols. The _ISBD_ (p. 1391) notes, "the practice had been
of
such long standing that Hezekiah's destruction of the high places (2 Kings
18:4) could be cited by Rabshakeh as an act of apostasy from Jehovah (2
Kings 18:22; 2 Chron. 32:12; Isa. 36:7)."
I think we need to pray for the success of our modern paleopresbyterian
Hezekiah's and Josiah's (2 Kings 23:19-22) and the overthrow of the
modern neopresbyterian and "evangelical" Rabshakeh's. We also need
to
mark the words and actions of our faithful Reformation forefathers (Phil.
3:16-17, and as noted throughout my letters), who have already fought
and won many of the same battles against idolatry and apostasy which are
being rekindled today. Note Gillespie's answer to your question,
"whereas many of the kings of Judah and Israel did either themselves
worship in the groves and the high places, or else, at least, suffer the
people to do so, howsoever they might have alleged specious reasons for
excusing themselves (Hospin, _De Orig. Templ._, lib. 1 cap. 1; Wolph. in 2
Reg. 12:4) as namely, that they gave not this honor to any strange gods,
but to the Lord only; that they chose these places only to worship in
wherein God was of old seen and worshipped by the patriarchs; that the
groves and the high places added a most amiable splendor and beauty to
the worship of God, and that they did consecrate these places for divine
worship in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to God's honor;
yet notwithstanding, because this thing was not commanded of God,
neither came it into his heart, he would admit no excuses; but ever
challenges it as a grievous fault in the government of those kings, that
those high places were not taken away, and that the people still sacrificed
in the high places. From all which examples we learn how highly God was
and is displeased with men for adding any other sacred ceremonies to
those which he himself has appointed (Hospin., ibid., p. 3)." (_A
Dispute
Against English Popish Ceremonies_, Naphtali edition, p. 318)
In answer to "Hezekiah songs" as a warrant for uninspired hymns in
worship.
You (outside of our recent letters) and others often appeal to Hezekiah for
warrant to sing uninspired songs in public worship. Because this is a
common (and I believe fleshy) appeal, please note the following from
pages 85-86 in SWRB's republication of _The Psalms in Worship_
(McNaugher, ed., 1907, reprinted 1992),
START QUOTE
"Prof. Heron claims the songs of Hezekiah were sung. This claim is
based on
a line contained in Hezekiah's song of thanksgiving composed on the
occasion of his recovery from sickness:
'Jehovah is ready to save me:
Therefore we will sing my songs with stringed instruments
All the days of our life in the house of Jehovah.' (Isa. 37:20, R.V.)
The Hebrew word here rendered 'sing,' whenever it occurs in the Bible,
except three times, is translated 'stringed instruments.' The word rendered
'we will sing' should be rendered 'we will strike'; Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon
gives no other meaning for it. The verse is properly translated:
'Jehovah is ready to save me:
Therefore my stringed instruments we will strike
All the days of my life in the house of Jehovah.'
Cheyne, Delitzsch, George Adam Smith, Orelli, Blake, the Cambridge Bible,
the Encyclopedia Biblica, and, indeed, all modern commentators translate
the verse as I have given it. Prof. Heron's argument is based on what is
certainly a mistranslation of this verse.
END QUOTE
This rendering would be in accord with what we know of all the great
Reformations of Old Testament times,
START QUOTE
As to the Biblical evidence outside the Psalter, the various references to
praise in the Old Testament show conclusively that the Psalms were the
matter of the songs. At the dedication of the temple in Solomon's time, and
again in the days of Zerubbabel, when the foundation of the new temple
was laid, the Psalms we sung. 2 Chron. 5:13; Ezra 3:11-12. And again they
were sung when good King Hezekiah, in a reformation that is worth more
than all the history of the years of Israel's backsliding as a testimony to
what had divine appointment, did everything "according to the
commandment of David... for so was the commandment of the Lord by His
prophets" 2 Chron. 29:25. "Hezekiah the king and the princes
commanded
the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David and of
Asaph the seer." 2 Chron. 29:30. The singers came up from captivity
with
Ezra and Nehemiah. We are told that "both the singers and the porters
kept
the charge of their God... according to the commandment of David, and of
Solomon his son. For in the days of David and Asaph of old there were
chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto God."
Neh.
12:45-46. These reformations and rededications are the best witness of
what was the real practice required by the Lord, for they then sought to do
everything according to the divine pattern. The objection that songs
outside the Psalter were used in God's worship, as the songs of Moses, of
Hezekiah, and of Habakkuk, is no positive sanction for singing extra-
Biblical hymns. And if there were uninspired songs used at times, they are
only exception and infractions that prove the rule ("The Psalms Are the
Divinely Authorized and Exclusive Manual of Praise" by Kennedy, as
cited
in McNaugher, ed., _The Psalms in Worship_ , p. 62).
END QUOTE
Do you think that things were more in order ecclesiastically in Calvin's
Geneva, Knox's Scotland and during the covenanted second reformation
than today among the OPC, PCA, CRC, etc.? What about the times of OT
reformation versus the days of OT backsliding? Even though it is unlikely
that uninspired songs, outside of those God provided for his people (and
possibly still inspired outside of the Psalms), were ever sung in public
ecclesiastical services; that they may have very sporadically appeared at
times of declension and apostasy is no argument for their lawful use --
much less an argument for writing and singing *uninspired* songs today.
This is not to mention that most (or possibly even all) of the modern
uninspired hymns are unbalanced and full (to a greater or lesser degree)
of heretical statements. But this is not surprising, because the hymn
writers often held to various heresies themselves -- from Wesley's
Arminianism to Watts' denial of the Trinity (and many hymns written by
Papists, Universalists and sundry other malignants). For your information
Watts' denial of the Trinity can be found in his _Works_, volume 7, pages
476-477 (Leed's edition). It may also be of interest to you to know that
when Watt's was subverting Reformation exclusive Psalmody with his
_Imitations of David's Psalms_ his stated purpose was to make David a
Christian. He also said that there are words in the Psalms which ought
never to be found on the lips of a Christian (information on Watts gleaned
from a letter by Jim Dodson). Our modern hymn-mongers fear not to
compose their own ditties for public worship, while the Apostles and the
Lord Himself, while He walked the earth, saw no need to add to God's
already existing hymnal (i.e. the Psalter). Why is it that heretics, from
Bardesanes (a Syrian Gnostic in the third century), Arius (d. 336 A.D.), the
Donatists (of Augustine's day), the Anabaptists (during the Reformation),
Wesley, Watts, and the "Frame's" of our day, always want to add to
God's
finished Psalter? Why is it that the Council of Laodicea (about 360 A.D.),
the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), the Calvinistic Reformers (and their
creeds) all opposed the introduction of uninspired hymns? Were the most
orthodox defenders of the church *always* wrong on this question and the
heretics and the compromised *always* right? Are you walking in the
footsteps of the flock (Song 1:8)? Who really defends the classic Protestant
(and Apostolic) position today? (cf. "The Psalms in the Post Apostolic
Church" in _The Psalms in Worship_, pp. 159-168 for more).
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. For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be
our guide even unto death (Ps. 48:12-14).
P.P.P.S. So as not to leave the honest inquirer after truth in confusion
as to
your ill informed and slanderous charges of Anabaptism against us, I will
use your false charge as a case in point to exhibit how far from the
classical Protestant mark you have drifted. Greg Price has already been
working on a book refuting this charge (because it is a continuing favorite
false charge of fashionable malignants, the ignorant and factious). This
short book, which will be called _A Testimony Against the Unfounded
Charges of Anabaptism_, is instructive in exposing the level of defection
and backsliding that has taken place in in the professing Reformed
community today. Thus, I am including it (in as far as it is completed) as
Appendix A below. You will notice that we do not hold to any of the
*distinctives* of the historic Anabaptist positions outlined by Price. You
will also notice (I hope) that it is actually you who has adopted some
Anabaptist distinctives! But this is illustrative of one of the main
problems
with our whole discussion. You have been speaking in vague generalities
and I have been dealing with specifics. You have proved almost nothing,
while I have provided ample proof of my assertions. You often oppose
classic Reformed thought, I have upheld the Reformation.
Well, here we go with some more specifics and proof. Greg's comparison of
Reformation views with those of the Anabaptists should convince any fair
minded reader of the ridiculous nature of your charges that we are
"perfectionistic and schismatic anabaptists." This work should
also help
convince anyone who is even moderately knowledgeable about Reformed
truth (and familiar with the Anabaptist heresies) that you (and not us)
have picked up on some of the Anabaptistic distinctives. Notice how the
Anabaptists were among the first "Reformation" groups to introduce
man-
made hymns, oppose the establishment of the one true Reformed religion
(thereby promoting tolerationism and religious pluralism), deny the
specifics of covenant obligations, adopted forms of civil antinomianism (as
you do in _Credenda/Agenda_ regarding the pornography question and
civil sanctions, see appendix B, "Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug
Wilson's Civil Antinomianism"), etc.
8. APPENDIX A: A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE UNFOUNDED CHARGES OF
ANABAPTISM by Greg Price
When theological and historical knowledge sinks so low that those
who walk in the good old paths of their covenanted forefathers of the First
and Second Reformations are smeared with the names of heresies their
forefathers vigorously attacked (which is simply a contemporary case of
historical revisionism), it becomes necessary to answer such unfounded
allegations for the sake of the truth as found in holy Scripture. It seems
as though it has become a popular way of debating in some
"reformed"
circles to accuse a person or church of being "anabaptistic" (of
course,
without supplying any historical evidence that would tie the heretical
views of the Anabaptists to faithful descendants of the reformers). All to
often, such *ad hominem * arguments focus upon the unlawful separatism
and perfectionism practiced by the Anabaptists (for which the Anabaptists
and all walking in their paths should rightly be condemned). However, we
must not stoop to the tactics of the world who falsely label a person or
church "racist" and "homophobic" simply because they
condemn
affirmative action and sodomy. Neither should a person or church be
falsely labeled "anabaptistic" simply because they condemn
ecclesiastical
toleration of false doctrine, unauthorized public worship, and unbiblical
church government. The warning of Calvin alerts us to the danger of such
misapplied labels:
Thus, the wickedness of many is still the reason why the Church is
troubled by divisions, and why contentions are kindled. *Yet those who
disturb the peace, throw the blame on us, and call us Schismatics*; for the
principal charge which the Papists bring against us is, that our doctrine
has
shaken the tranquility of the Church. Yet the truth is, that, if they would
yield submissively to Christ, and give their support to the truth, all the
commotions would immediately be allayed. But when they utter murmurs
and compaints against Christ, and will not allow us to be at rest on any
other condition than that the truth of God shall be extinguished, and that
Christ shall be banished from his kingdom, they have no right to accuse us
of the crime of schism; for it is on themselves, as every person sees, that
this crime ought to be charged. We ought to be deeply grieved that the
Church is torn by divisions arising among those who profess the same
religion; but it is better that there are some who separate themselves from
the wicked, to be united to Christ their Head, than that all should be of
one
mind in despising God. *Consequently, when schisms arise, we ought to
inquire who they are that revolt from God and from his pure doctrine*.1
Thus, let us clearly distinguish between the heresy of the Anabaptists
and the orthodoxy of the Reformers (and those who own the biblical truths
for which the reformers stood), and thus shun the sin of calling evil good
and good evil:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter! (Is. 5:20).
Anabaptism is indeed rampant throughout the ecclesiastical
landscape of the present era. Like a cancer, anabaptism has infected the
modern church (including many churches that profess to be reformed), and
its malignancy continues to spread. But unless we can accurately diagnose
this heresy in its various forms, we will not be able to destroy it by
means of the Spirit and the truth. To the end that this ancient heresy
might be exposed and removed from the Church of Christ, the following
contrasts between the positions of the Anabaptist and Reformed churches
are made. Anabaptism has generally shunned confessional formulations
(one exemption to this general rule however is the _The Schleitheim
Confession_, also known as_The Seven Articles _ of 1527):
They [i.e. the anabaptistic Brethren movement-GLP] emphasized believer's
baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) and *shunned creeds and
"statements of faith"* due to the possibility of over-emphasizing
some
teachings or beliefs, and minimizing or ignoring others. *They took the
entire New Testament as their creed*.2
Thus, it is not always a simple task to identify the "distinctive"
beliefs and
practices of the Anabaptists, for they were far from a monolithic system.
In fact, the Anabaptists at times differed as much amongst themselves as
they did with those who were within the Reformed Church (a covenanted
uniformity in doctrine, worship, and government was not one of the
distinctives of anabaptism, though it was a distinctive of the Reformed
Church particularly of the Second Reformation). Although all of the
positions cited below may not be representative of every anabaptist
church, nevertheless, there has been made a serious attempt to catalogue
some of the prominent errors embraced by various historical
representatives of Anabaptism.
1. The Incarnation
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Though Christ was fully God, he lacked a true
human body (i.e. a human body that was derived from the Virgin Mary).
Christ's body was no different than that of angelic appearances in the
flesh.
He is called, they [the Anabaptists-GLP] say, the "Son of David,"
not
because He has taken anything from the Virgin Mary or was made man
from her substance, but only because she carried Him in her body, *as
water passes through a tube*.3
This same woman [i.e. the Virgin Mary-GLP] conceived in her womb the
afore-mentioned seed [i.e. Christ-GLP], which is God's Word, *not from her
body nor of her body*, but of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through
faith. . . . The Word [i.e. Christ-GLP]. . . was not Abraham's natural
flesh and blood. . . . For Christ Jesus, as to His origin, is no earthly
man, that is, a fruit of the flesh and blood of Adam.4
(2) This is simply the ancient heresy of the
Valentinians who denied that Christ's human nature was derived from the
virgin Mary.
As the divinity of Christ was attacked by the fury of various heresies, so
Satan has raised up many enemies against his humanity. . . . The
Valentinians held that indeed he had a body, but one sent sent from
heaven, not one received from the virgin. They also believed that the
body of the virgin was like a channel through which the body of Christ
passed. . . . Treading in the footsteps of all these, *the modern Anabaptists
deny that Christ took flesh and blood from the substance of the blessed
virgin*.5
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) It was absolutely essential that Christ should
receive a real body and a reasonable soul in order to become a mediator
between God and man who could redeem us from the fall of the first
Adam.
Furthermore, *the matter was necessary for our redemption*: that the
disobedience which was committed in our nature might also be repaired in
the same. For this reason our Lord Jesus became *true man*, presenting
Himself as in the person of Adam, whose name He also assumed (Rom.
5:14; 1 Cor. 15:47), in order to pay the price of sin *in the flesh in which
it
was committed*.6
Q.37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself *a true body*,
and a reasonable [i.e. rational-GLP] soul, being conceived by the power of
the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, *of her substance*, and
born of her, yet without sin.7
Q.39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might
advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make
intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;
that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access
with boldness unto the throne of grace.8
2. Salvation
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Divine election is conditioned upon the foresight
of God in knowing all those who would first choose to believe in Him.
For with the Pelagians and Papists, *ye [Anabaptists-GLP] are become
teachers of free will*, and defenders of your own justice.9
(2) Salvation or corresponding punishment are only for
sins personally committed rather than for original sin imputed and
inherited from Adam.
They [i.e. Anabaptists-GLP] deny that the posterity are
guilty on account of the fall of their first parents.10
(3) Good works are necessary to justification . Schaff
notes that the Anabaptists rejected Luther's theory of forensic, solifidian
[by faith alone-GLP] justification.11
Balthasar Hubmaier, one of the early pillars of Anabaptism, articulated
this subjective view of salvation when he represented God as stating, Man,
help yourself, and then I will help you.12
(4) True believers may finally fall from grace and true faith.
The question concerning perseverance is agitated by us with old and new
Pelagians and Semipelagians, who agree in opposing and denying it. Such
are the Romanists, Socinians, *Anabaptists* and Remonstrants, *who, on
this point (as in the others concerning grace), depart from the orthodox
doctrine and were condemned by the Synod of Dort in Article 5* (Acta
Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1619-20], 1:311-17).13
(5) These errors are rampant in Arminianism (which
promotes a thoroughly man-centered salvation).
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) Divine election is not conditioned upon forseen
faith in man or any merit found in man, but rests entirely in the freedom
of God's sovereign will.
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen
in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love,
*without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of
them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving
him thereunto*; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.14
(2) Justification is an objective, judicial act of God
whereby He forgives all those who believe in Christ and declares the
believing sinner righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ
alone.
Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our
sins,
and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, *only for the righteousness of
Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone*.15
3. The Scriptures
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Though the Old Testament is of divine inspiration,
it was given only to the Israelite nation as a rule. It is the New
Testament alone that is the rule for the Christian, for only the New
Testament manifests the perfection of Christ.
[T]hey rejected the Old Testament as equal with the New Testament
*as a basis for faith and practice*.16
This question [concerning the authority of the Old Testament-GLP] brings
us into collision with Anabaptists who reject the books of the Old
Testament from the canon of faith, as if they had not the least reference to
Christians and as if they should not draw from them doctrines of faith and
rules of life. *The Mennonites in their Confession (Article 11) teach that
"all Christians, in matters of faith, ought to have recourse
necessarily
only to the gospel of Christ . . . .*"17
The second question treats of the morality of the Sabbath-whether the
fourth commandment, sanctioning the sanctification of the Sabbath, is
moral and perpetual; or only ceremonial and constituted for a certain time
. . . . The second [view-GLP] asserts that it is merely ceremonial and so
entirely abrogated by Christ. *This was the opinion of the ancient
Manichaeans and of the Anabaptists and Socinians of the present day (who
hold that it was so abrogated as to pertain in no way to Christians)*.18
According to Anabaptists,
*The Old Testament was given to the Jews alone and had no authority
for Christians*. The Old was therefore especially inferior to the New,
because the hope of everlasting life was lacking.19
(2) This error has been (in substance) propounded by
modern day dispensationalists.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) All of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) is
inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is "profitable for doctrine, for
reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). The
moral
law found in the Old Testament binds the consciences of all men, even as
that same moral law does that is revealed in the New Testament.
*The Old Testament in Hebrew*, (which was the native language of the
people of God of old,) *and the New Testament in Greek*, (which at the
time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being
immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept
pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; *so as in all controversies of
religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them*.20
There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, *but
one and the same [covenant of grace-GLP] under various dispensations [i.e.
Old Covenant and New Covenant-GLP]*.21
4. The Church
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Only those who profess faith in Christ and have
reached a demonstrable level of sanctification are eligible to become
members of the Visible Church. Thus, the Visible Church is a body
composed of a regenerate membership.
Its [Anabaptism's-GLP] characteristics were. . . a "pure" church
*consisting of the "truly" converted* who desire a "holy
community"
separated from the world.22
Although we think true believers alone are [truly-GLP] members of the
church, we do not on this account favor the error of the Novatians,
Catharists and Donatists, or of the modern Anabaptists (which the
Romanists calumniously charge us with doing), *who hold that the church
consists of those who are perfectly sanctified*. For besides the fact that
in
theexternal communion hypocrites are mixed with true believers, the elect
(who alone formally belong to the mystical body of Christ as long as they
live on earth) are always exposed to various stains and sins (1 Jn.1:8); as
the moon never shines in such a way as to be without various spots.23
(2) There is no formal connection between separate
congregations. Thus, there is no church court higher than the independent
congregation to whom the congregation must submit.
(3) This humanly instituted form of church membership
and church government may be observed in various independent and
congregational churches.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) The visible church consists of all those who
profess (in the judgment of charity) the true religion together with their
children. Within the membership of the visible church are both regenerate
and unregenerate. God addeth such as should be saved to the visible
Church by baptism, because the adjoining to a visible Church is a way to
salvation, *but it followeth not that all whom God addeth to the visible
Church are saved ones*, for then the visible Church should consist only of
believers, which only Anabaptists teach.24
(2) There ought to be a formal constitutional connection
between individual congregations, and higher ecclesiastical courts to which
individual congregations must submit in the Lord.
It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed
by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical
[presbyterial-GLP], and synodical . . . . *It is lawful, and agreeable to
the word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational,
classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the
church*.25
And it is so obligatory to all persons, states and degrees, that none ought
to be exempted from that Church-government which is jure divino [by
divine right-GLP], nor to be *tolerated* in another Church-government,
which is but jure humano [by human right-GLP]; nor ought any Christian
to seek after, or content himself with any such Exemption or
*Toleration*.26
For in so doing, inventions of men are [would be] preferred before the
ordinances of God; our own wisdom, will, authority [would be]
before the wisdom, will, [and-GLP] authority of Christ. . . . *That the
Law of God holds forth a subordination of a particular Church to greater
Assemblies, consisting of several choice members, taken out of several
single Congregations, which Assemblies have authoritative power and
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over that particular Church by way of
sentencing in and deciding of Ecclesiastical causes*.27
5. Worship
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Baptism (according to Anabaptists) should only be
administered to those who sincerely profess their faith in Chirst and give
evidence of genuine repentance. Since infants can neither believe in
Chirst nor repent of sin, they cannot receive Christian baptism.
*Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and
amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away
by Christ*, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected
with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of
us and demand it for themselves. *This excludes all infant baptism, the
highest and chief abomination of the Pope*.28
This is simply the unbiblical view of Baptists today who exclude the
children of believers from the blessings of the covenant.
(2) Furthermore, Anabaptists composed some of the earliest
Protestant [uninspired-GLP] hymns in the German language. . . . They
dwell on the inner life of the Christian, the mysteries of regeneration,
sanctification, and personal union with Christ.29
In composing uninspired hymns to be used in worship (contrary to the
universal practice of the Reformed Churches), the Anabaptists find
expression in most twentieth century churches (regardless of
denominational label) who have departed from the Regulative Principle of
Worship.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) Baptism is rightly administered to all who profess
faith in Christ and to the infant children of one or both believing
parents.
Q.95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible
church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; *but
the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be
baptized*.30
*[T]hose infants who derive their origin from Christians*, as they have
been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant, and are accepted
by God, are thus to be received into baptism.31
(2) The spiritual descendants of Calvin and the Westminster
Assembly have steadfastly maintained that God is only to be worshipped
according to His own revealed will. This is known as the Regulative
Principle of Worship and is simply an articulation of the Second
Commandment.
So let us hold to this rule, that all human inventions which are set up to
corrupt the simple purity of the word of God, and to undo the worship
which he demands and approves, are true sacrileges, *in which the
Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God*, and trampling
his honour underfoot.32
Now, if you will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith, and do
please God, *you must prove that God in expressed words has commanded
them*; or else you shall never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet
that they please God; but they are sin, and do displease him, according to
the words of the apostle, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."33
But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by
himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be
worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the
suggestions of Satan, under any visble representation, *or any other way
not prescribed in the holy Scripture*.34
*But what Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy of
God, unless he has received them from Himself [i.e. from God-GLP]*.
Therefore, after we have sought on every side, searching here and there,
we shall find no songs better and more suitable for our purpose than the
Psalms of David, dictated to him and made for him by the Holy Spirit. . . .
it should accustom itself hereafter to sing *these divine and heavenly
songs* with good King David.35
The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and
conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with
understanding, faith, and reverence; *singing of psalms with grace in the
heart*; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the
sacraments instituted by Christ; *are all parts of the ordinary worship of
God*.36
*It is the duty of Christians* to praise God publicly, *by singing of
psalms* together in the congregation.37
With one word, we judge this and other novelties, in these carefree
days a useless hindrance. This we also say of the introduction of new
hymn-books, and present day ditties, which we do not find in God's Word;
as also the playing and peeping of organs in the Church. The former are all
against the decrees of our Synods. See about singing in the Church, the
National Synod of Dordt held in 1578, art. 76; the National Synod held in
Middleburg, 1581, art. 51; the National Synod held in the Hague, 1586, art.
62; *at which gatherings hymns not found in Scripture are expressly
forbidden*.38
*It is known from Church history, that those who are after
novelties, by introducing man-made hymns and errors, have corrupted the
Congregation*. . . . The statement made by the Synod of Dordt, 1574, art.
50, needs our special attention; where we read, "*Concerning the use of
Organs in the Congregation, we hold that according to 1 Cor. 14:19, it
should not have a place in the Church*. . ." To know the reason why
Organs
should be kept out of the church, read our learned theologians and their
polemics about Organs against the Lutherans and Papists.39
6. Separation
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) It is warranted and justified to separate from a
church due to the toleration of moral corruption within the life of members
of the church. Where scanalous sin is evident in the life of professing
members of a church, such a church is not perfected in Christ and cannot
be a true church. Like the Novatians and the Donatists of old who would
not allow repentant sinners back into the fellowship of the church until
they had manifested years of fruitful repentance, so the Anabaptists
required a pure membership in the visible church. From this we should
learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot
be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. *By
this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services*.40
The debate is over this: they [the Anabaptists-GLP] think
that wherever this order [i.e. the ban or excommunication- GLP] is not
properly constituted, or not duly exercised, no church exists, and it is
unlawful for a Christian to receive the Lord's Supper there. *Thus they
separate themselves from the churches in which the doctrine of God is
purely preached, taking this pretext: that they do not care to participate
in
the pollution committed therein, because those who ought to be
excommunicated have not been banished*.41
(2) This is the error practiced by true schismatics and
sectarians.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) It is warranted and justified to separate from a
church due to an habitual and notable defection from the truth in
doctrine, worship, or government. However, separation is not justified
merely on the grounds that a church tolerates sin in the members of its
congregation.
This is undoubtedly a warning highly necessary, in order that when the
temple of God happens to be tainted by many impurities, we may not
contract such disgust and chagrin as will make us withdraw from
it. *By impurities I understand the vices of a corrupt and polluted life.
Provided religion continue pure as to doctrine and worship, we must not
be so much stumbled at the faults and sins which men commit, as on that
account to rend the unity of the Church*. Yet the experience of all ages
teaches us how dangerous a temptation it is when we behold the Church of
God, which ought to be free from all polluting stains, and to shine in
uncorrupted purity, cherishing in her bosom many ungodly hypocrites, or
wicked persons. From this the Catharists, Novatians, and Donatists, took
occasion in former times to separate themselves from the fellowship of the
godly. *The Anabaptists, at the present day, renew the same schisms,
because it does not seem to them that a church in which vices are tolerated
can be a true church*. But Christ, in Matth. xxv.32, justly claims it as his
own peculiar office to separate the sheep from the goats; and thereby
admonishes us, that we must bear with the evils which it is not in our
power to correct, until all things become ripe, and the proper season of
purging the Church arrive.42
When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from
the Truth, the lesser part remaining sound, *the greatest part is the
Church of Separatists*.43
*The blame of Schism must not be upon those who forsake such as have
forsaken Christ, and the ancient Faith, but upon those who have thus
forsaken Christ, and his Truths*: Yea farther, if they impose that which
is not necessary, (tho' in itself not sinful) and will not bear with the
Weaknesses of such as think it to be evil; *if, upon that, they be forced
to withdraw, in this the Governors are the Schismatics, because the Rent is
in them*.44
7. Perfectionism
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Christians are saints, and as those who are holy,
they are not to have any contact with those who are polluted and
corrupted with sin. Christians should withdraw from the corruption in this
world and live in their own communal societies.
A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which
the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that *we shall not
have fellowship with them*.45
Once the Novatians stirred up the churches with this teaching, but our own
age has certain Anabaptists (not very different from Novatianists) who are
lapsing into the same madness. *For they feign that in baptism God's
people are reborn into a pure and angelic life, unsullied by any carnal
filth*.46
The same question [concerning perfectionism-GLP] was renewed in this
century by the Neopelagians, Romanists, Socinians and *Anabaptists*, who,
to pave the way for the merits of works, *maintained that the law can be
perfectly fulfilled by the renewed*.47
(2) This is the dangerous error of Wesley and Finney
who taught that Christians can (through a second work of grace) reach a
perfect state of entire sanctification in this life.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) Christians are saints by calling and are being
conformed by the power of the Word and Spirit into the image of Christ.
However, sanctification is gradual in this life, and the remnants of sin
remain within every Christian. Although the Christian cannot remove
himself entirely from sin and sinners in this life, yet he is not to
consent (in thought, word, or deed) to the sin around him. Furthermore,
establishing and guarding purity in doctrine, worship, and government as a
part of a church's true constitution is not perfectionism, but simply
faithfulness to Christ.
This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this
life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part.48
No man that takes due care of his salvation, can join himself to it [i.e.
to a church-GLP], when the fundamentals of religious worship are
corrupted or overthrown, *it is absolutely unlawful to join unto, or abide
in
any [such-GLP] Church*.49
However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the
church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among
them. *Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful
constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the
sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of
doctrine*. . . . To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the
Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however
woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the
church remain-especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the
devil's wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand,
because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay
particular regard in this discourse, I say that everyone of their
congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church.50
8. Civil Government
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Civil government is outside the realm of Christ's
kingdom and, and thus no Christian should serve in a civil capacity. War,
capital punishment, judicial retribution, nor self-defence have any place
in the life of a Christian.
Therefore, there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian,
*devilish weapons of force*-such as sword, armor and the like, and all
their use (either) for friends or against one's enemies-by virtue of the
Word of Christ. Resist not (him that is) evil.51
Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is
as follows: *They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view
it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus, shall we do as He did*, and
follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness.52
(2) The civil magistrate should not establish by law
the Reformed Church (or any other church) nor a reformed and
presbyterian creed (or any other creed) as the official church and creed
within a nation. Rather a civil government should establish a position of
liberty of conscience with regard to all religions.
From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our
God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun
and flee from. *By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and
church services, meetings and church attendance*, drinking houses, civic
affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which
are
highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to
the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is
in the world.53
Wherefore we condemn *the Anabaptists*, and all those troublesome
spirits, *which do reject higher powers and magistrates, overthrow all laws
and judgments*, make all goods common, and, to conclude, do abolish and
confound all those orders and degrees, which God hath appointed among
men for honesty's sake.54
Gillespie provides a very helpful summary of the three major positions
concerning established religion and liberty of conscience. *The Papists*
believed that the civil magistrate should put all heretics to death (and
promoted the use of many abominable means of torture in order to compel
confessions and recantations) without making any distinction amongst the
various degrees or obstinacy of heresy. *The Anabaptists* believed that
the civil magistrate should tolerate all religions, even legally protecting
the free exercise of false religions (this is the position endorsed by not
only evangelicals today, but also the position propounded by Reformed
Churches as well). *The Reformed Churches* offered a mediating position
wherein the civil magistrate should legally establish the one true Reformed
Religion, protecting and defending it from all heresy, schism, and false
worship. Although not tolerating false religions, the magistrate,
nevertheless, should make distinctions amongst heresies as to the degree
of seriousness and as to the degree of obstinacy in the heretic (i.e. all
heretics should not be punished to the same extent).
*The first opinion is that of the Papists*, who hold it to be not only no
sin, but good service to God, to extirpate [i.e. uproot-GLP] by fire and
sword, all that are adversaries to, or opposers of the Church and the
Catholic religion. . . that all heretics without distinction are to be put
to death.55
*The second opinion [which represents the position of the Anabaptists,
Independents, and other sectaries-GLP]* falls short, as far as the former
exceeds: that is, that the Magistrate ought not to inflict any punishment,
nor put forth any coercive power upon heretics or sectaries, but on the
contrary grant them liberty and toleration.56
*The third opinion [which represents the position of the Reformed
Churches-GLP]* is that the Magistrate may and ought to exercise his
coercive power, in suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries, *less
or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schism,
obstinacy, and danger of seducing others, requires*. . . . And lest it be
thought that this is but the opinion of some few, that the magistrate ought
thus by a strong hand, and by civil punishments suppress heretics and
sectaries: let it be observed what is held forth and
professed concerning this business, by the Reformed Churches in their
public confessions of faith. *In the latter Confession of Helvetia
(cap.30)*, it is said that the magistrate ought to "root out lies and
all
superstition, with all impiety and idolatry." And after, "Let him
suppress
stubborn heretics." *In the French Confession (art.39)*,
"Therefore he
hath also delivered the sword into the hands of Magistrates, to wit, that
offenses may be repressed, not only those which are committed against the
second table, but also against the first." *In the Belgic Confession
(art.36)*, "Therefore hath he armed the Magistrate with the sword for
punishing them that do evil, and for defending such as do well. Moreover
it is their duty not only to be careful and watchful for the preservation
of the civil government, but also to defend the holy ministry, and to
abolish and overthrow all idolatry, and counterfeit worship of God."
*Beza* (De Hareticis), tells us in the beginning, that *the ministers of
Helvetia* had declared themselves to be of the same judgment, in a book
published of that argument. And toward the end he cites *the Saxon
Confession, Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus, Wolfgangus Capito, and
Bullinger. The Synod of Dordt (ses.138)*, in their sentence against the
Remonstrants does not only interdict them of all their ecclesiastical and
academical functions, but [does] also beseech the States General [of the
Netherlands-GLP] by their secular power to suppress and restrain them.57
(3) Herein we find the ever popular heresy of religious
pluralism (or religious toleration) which legally protects (and therefore
promotes) all false religion (contrary to the First Table Commandments),
thus subverting the true Reformed religion, the truth of Christ, and the
unity of faith.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) Civil government is an ordinance of God established
for God's glory and and the welfare of man. To that end God has entrusted
into the hands of the *lawful* magistrate the sword. It is lawful for
Christians to serve as magistrates in a *lawful* government in order to
exercise capital punishment, just wars and judicial recompense to the
guilty.58 It is also lawful for a Christian to exercise self-defence after
all
other options to preserve one's life have been exhausted.
*We condemn the Anabaptists*, who, as they deny that a Christian man
should bear the office of a magistrate, so also they deny that any man can
justly be put to death by the magistrate, or that the magistrate may make
war, or that oaths should be performed to the magistrate, and such like
things.59
We do clearly protest, that, together with all other doctrines which are
directly contrary to the sound and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, we do not
only not receive, *but, as abominations and blasphemies*, reject and
condemn those strange and erroneous doctrines, which the spirits of
hurlyburly [i.e. commotion-GLP] among other damnable opinions do bring
forth, *saying, &c. that magistrates cannot be Christians*. And, in the
margin:-*The magistrate doth then shew himself to be a good magistrate,
when he is a true Christian*.60
(2) A Christian may even serve and hold civil office in
an unlawful government provided no sinful act is required in order to hold
office, such as an oath of allegiance to an immoral constitution.
It is, I grant, often God's decree revealed by the event, that a conqueror
be on the throne, but this will [i.e. God's providential will-GLP] is not
our rule, *and the people are to swear no oath of allegiance contrary to
God's Voluntas signi, which is his revealed will in his word regulating
us*.61
And I have never been able to satisfy myself, how it was consistent, in
those who profess Presbyterianism, to swear an oath [e.g. when assuming a
civil or military position-GLP], which involves the supporting of idolatry
[by means of consitutionally protecting false religions-GLP], &c.,
while, at
the same time, in their creeds and church constitutions, they solemnly
recognize their obligation, in their respective stations, to remove every
monument and vestige of it from the land [as expounded in "The Larger
Catechism", Q. 108, i.e. in the original Larger Catechism of
1648-GLP].62
The friends of truth cannot justifiably persevere in supporting the British
Constitution as the ordinance ofGod. . . . The friends of truth under the
present government should say to it in such a manner as not to be
misunderstood,--We will obey your good laws, because they are good; *but
by oaths or otherwise we will not recognize your authority as of God*.--We
will co-operate with you in doing what is good; *but so long as you
continue to support evil, we cannot swear allegiance to you*. Abolish
all oaths of allegiance, and we will act along with you in every right
matter.--Were all those who hold the truth in the united kingdom to do so,
would not the request extort regard? And might not rulers see the
propriety of yielding? Were such oaths to the present government
abolished, then those who love the truth might enter parliament, and act
without being responsible for the evils of the civil constitution and of the
administration, and at the same time lead to essential political
reformation;
and the people could with a clear conscience return to parliament such
men as might be possessed of proper character, and be of known
attachment to the truth. Were a door opened in this manner for men
consistently uttering their voice in the councils of the nation, then means
should be assiduously used, on the part of the people and on the part of
their representatives, for scripturally reforming the State, and for giving
to
true religion that external countenance and support which is due it.63
(3) It is the duty of civil magistrates to suppress all
false religion and to establish the true reformed religion (in doctrine,
worship, and government) by law within his realm.
Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live
among men, *to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend
sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church*, to adjust our life
to
the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to
reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and
tranquility.64
Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, *we affirm that
chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion
appertains*; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but
also for maintenance of *the true religion*, and for suppressing of
idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah,
Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be
espied.65
The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that
every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and
*defender of both tables of the law*, may and ought first and chiefly to
take care of God's glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner and
way) *to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and
corrupted*: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the
violators of justice and civil peace.66
All pious fatherlanders rejoiced when the States General [of the
Netherlands-GLP] in the great Assembly of 1651 declared, "*That each in
his own province must keep and maintain the Reformed religion*, as it is
presently preached and taught publicly in our Churches, as was established
by the National Synod held at Dordt in 1619." They also decided that
"*the
before mentioned religion*, by the provinces, as well as by the States
General in the provinces under their jurisdiction, *shall be maintained with
the law of the land, without allowing anyone ever to make any
changes*."
Synod of Dordt, Article 1 and 2.67
Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving,
observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and
ordinances as God hath instituted in his word. . . *as also the
disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to
each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry*.
. . .68
Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,
counselling, commanding, using, *and any wise approving, any religious
worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion*. . ..69
9. Oaths
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) All oaths (personal, ecclesiastical, and civil) are
forbidden to the Christian, because his own word is sufficient to bind him
to his duty.
The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or making
promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God's Name, but
only in truth, not falsely. *Christ, who teaches the perfection of the
Law, prohibits all swearing to His (followers), whether true or false*.70
(2) Anabaptism denies a biblical warrant for personal and
social covenanting in this age, thereby denying the perpetual obligation of
personal, ecclesiastical, or national covenanting.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) Covenanting (whether personal, ecclesiastical, or national)
is a moral duty binding all men under the New Covenant even as it did
under the Old Covenant. Oaths required on certain solemn occasions are
lawful provided that the matter of the oath is agreeable to the Word of
God and is able to be performed.
Calvin's first objective was to obtain, at a meeting attended by the whole
city, *an oath forcing the entire population to abjure the papacy and
adhere to the Christian religion and its discipline, as comprehended under
a few headings*.71
*Register of the Council of 24* *12 November 1537*. It was reported that
yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation
were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did
not do so. No one came from the German quarter. *It was decided that
they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear
to the reformation*.72
*26 November 1537*. Some people have been reported to have said that it
was perjury to swear to a confession which had been dictated to them in
writing . . . [Farel or Calvin] replied that if the contents of the written
confession were studied carefully it would be seen that this was not so, but
that it was a confession made according to God. Examples from holy
Scripture (in Nehemia and Jeremiah) proved that the people should
all be assembled to swear to keep faith with God and observe his
commandments.73
*To swear to the true religion, the defence and maintenance thereof is a
lawful oath*; as to swear to any thing that is lawful, and to lay a new band
on our souls to perform holy duties, where we fear a breach, and find by
experience there hath been a breach, is also *a duty of moral and
perpetual equity*; therefore such a sworn covenant is lawful.74
(2) The Westminster Assembly, the Church of Scotland, and
the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland (and "*all his Majesties
dominions*") swore the Solemn League and Covenant on behalf of not only
their living posterity, but also on behalf of all their national,
ecclesiastical
and individual posterity who would follow them.75
We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of
the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England,
and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King, and being of
one reformed religion. . . *after mature deliberation, resolved and
determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant,
wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands
lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear*. . . we shall each one of us,
according to our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain
conjoined in a firm peace and union *to all posterity* . . . .76
Note who the "all posterity" (as mentioned in the Solemn League
and
Covenant) includes by the language of the Westminster divines in their
letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1644):
Those Winds which for a while do trouble the Aire, do withall purge and
refine it: And our trust is that through the most wise Providence and
blessing of God, the Truth by our so long continued agitations, will be
better cleared among us, and so our service will prove more acceptable to
all the Churches of Christ, but more especially to you, while we
have an intentive eye to our peculiar Protestation, *and to that publick
Sacred Covenant [i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant- GLP]* entered into
by both the Kingdomes [Ireland is not formally omitted here, but is
omitted only because this English Assembly is addressing the Scottish
General Assembly-GLP], for Uniformity *in all his Majesties Dominions*.77
Not only did the Westminster Assembly understand the posterity bound
by the Solemn League and Covenant to be "all his majesties
dominions",
but the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland also officially declared
the same to be true in their letter (1648) to Charles I:
As we do not oppse the restitution of your Majestie to the exercise of your
Royall Power; So we must needs desire that that which is GODS be given
unto Him in the first place, and that Religion may be secured before the
setling of any humane interest; Being confident that this way is not only
most for the Honour of GOD, but also for your Majesties Honor and Safety.
And therefore as it was one of our Desires to the High and Honourable
Court of Parliament that they would solicte your Majestie for securing of
Religion, *and establishing the Solemn League and Covenant in all your
Dominions* [the Solemn League and Covenant having been sworn and
made law by the Parliaments of England and Scotland, it was required that
Charles I swear to establish it and to enforce it in all his dominions
before
he would be allowed to return to his throne and to exercise his royal
authority-GLP].78
Is it possible to know which nations were bound as posterity by the
Solemn League and Covenant (1643) and included in "all his majesties
dominions?" Clearly, it was all the subjects and the dominions under
the
Crown of Great Britain (including the United States and Canada both of
which were then designated as "the dominions in America").
*The first colonial Charter* issued by the English crown (1606) was for the
settlement of Jamestown in Virginia. Here it is noted that the colony of
Virginia is declared to be one of the kings "Dominions" as much as
any
other royal dominion, and its members are considered by James I to have
the same rights as those living in the "Realm of England." It
provided that
all . . . Persons, being our Subjects [i.e. subjects of the Crown of
England-GLP], which shall dwell and inhabit within . . . any of the said
Colonies and Plantations, and every [one] of their children, which shall
happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said
several Colonies and Plantations, shall Have and enjoy all Liberties,
Franchises, and Immunities, *within any of our other Dominions*, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our
Realm of England, *or any other of our said Dominions* . . . .79
In 1663, Charles II granted a charter to eight English gentlemen who had
helped him regain the throne of England. The charter document contains
the following description of the territory (then designated Carolina) which
the eight Lords Proprietors were granted title to:
All that Territory or tract of ground, situate, lying, and being
within *our Dominions in America* . . . .80
In a document written by Thomas Jefferson entitled "A Summary of the
Rights of British America", the following brief reference to an Act
from
King
#
George III demonstrates that even those living in America understood
they were a dominion of his majesty.
One other act passed in the 6th year of his reign [George III-GLP],
entituled "An Act for the better securing dependency of *his majesty's
dominions in America* upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain.81
The following excerts occur in the newspaper that Benjamin Franklin
published in Philadelphia (The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser)
wherein reference is made to colonies in what is now Canada and the
United States as being dominions of the Crown.
In considering of these questions, perhaps it may be of use to recollect;
that the colonies were planted in times when the powers of parliament
were not supposed so extensive, as they are become since the Revolution: -
- That they were planted in lands and countries where the parliament had
not then the least jurisdiction: -- That, excepting *the yet infant colonies
of
Georgia and Nova Scotia*, none of them were settled at the expence of any
money granted by parliament: That the people went from hence by
permission from the crown, purchased or conquered the territory, at the
expence of their own private treasure and blood: That these territories
thus became *new dominions of the crown*, settled under royal charters,
that formed their several governments and constitutions, on which the
parliament was never consulted; or had the least participation. January 6,
1766.82
The Colonies had, from their first Settlement, been governed with more
Ease, than perhaps can be equalled by any Instance in History, *of
Dominions so distant*. February, 1773.83
Whereas Anabaptist churches have not viewed themselves as being bound
by such national covenants as the Solemn League and Covenant, Reformed
churches have rightly viewed such historical covenants as obligating their
posterity even as biblical covenants bound the posterity of the fathers who
swore them. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) of the Academy of Geneva has
declared concerning such national covenants that *covenants once
sanctioned are to be kept*, as they bind the magistrate no less than the
people . . . .84
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649) declared without
reservation that even unfaithfulness on the part of any one kingdom could
not free another covenanted kingdom from its obligation to the Solemn
League and Covenant.
Although there were none in the one Kingdome who did adhere to the
Covenant [i.e. The Solemn League and Covenant sworn by the kingdoms of
Scotland, England, and Ireland in 1643-GLP], yet thereby were not the
other Kingdom nor any person in either of them absolved from the bond
thereof, *since in it we have not only sworne by the Lord, but also
covenanted with him. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve
others from their duty or tye to him; Besides, the duties therein contained,
being in themselves lawfull, and the grounds of our tye thereunto moral,
though others do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us
from that obligation which lyes upon us by the Covenant in our places and
stations*. And the Covenant being intended and entered into by these
Kingdoms, as one of the best means of stedfastnesse, for guarding against
declining times; It were strange to say that the back-sliding of any should
absolve others from the tye thereof, especially seeing our engagement
therein is not only nationall, but also personall, every one with uplifted
hands swearing by himself, as it is evident by the tennor of the
Covenant.85
10. Eschatology
a. The view of Anabaptists
(1) Christ will reign bodily upon the earth for a thousand
years.
It appears that Calvin was well informed about the preference for chiliasm
[premillenialism-GLP] on the part of the Radicals [from the Anabaptist
movement-GLP]. *[C]alvin named Muntzer, Melchior Hoffman, and Storch,
all of whom were chiliasts, as leaders of the Anabaptist movement*.86
(2) "Some [Anabaptists-GLP] believed in the sleep of the
soul between death and resurrection."87
It is renewed in this age by the milder Socinians and *Anabaptists* who,
pressing in their footsteps, presume to defend at least *a night of the
soul (viz., that souls either sleep and are without all sense or are
extinguished until the resurrection)*.88
(3) The one thousand year reign of Christ upon the earth after
His coming is the error of the premillennialists.
(4) The doctrine of soul sleep is prevalent among those cults
(e.g. Jehovah Witnesses) who deny the immortality of the soul.
b. The view of the Reformers
(1) Christ will reign from heaven over all nations for an
extended period of time. This glorious era will be evidenced by the
success of the gospel, the calling of the Jews, the uniformity of one faith
throughout the world, national covenanting (and covenant renewal), and
both civil and ecclesiastical governments working together for biblical
reformation.
*The coming of Christ to reign here on earth a thousand years is, if not a
groundless opinion, yet so dubious and uncertain* as not to be admitted a
place in the analogy of faith to regulate our interpretation of
Scripture. . . .89
(2) At death the souls of the righteous immediately ascend to
enjoy conscious rest in God, while the souls of the wicked immediately
descend to endure conscious torment in hell.
[F]aithful souls immediately after death experience some enjoyment of the
heritage that has been promised to them, but inasmuch as the glory of
Jesus Christ their king has not yet appeared and the heavenly city of God
has not yet been established in its fullness, they must wait until that day
arrives.90
The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; *but
their souls, (which neither die nor sleep,)* having an immortal
subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the
righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the
highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory,
waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked
are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness,
reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for
souls separated from their bodies, the scripture acknowledgeth none.91
The hesesy of Anabaptism lives today! It has infected the modern church
with its cancerous errors and heresies: anti-creedalism, arminianism,
dispensationalism, independency (sectarianism), anti-paedobaptism,
will-worship (anti-regulativism), perfectionism, societal escapism,
religious pluralism and tolerationism (anti-establishmentarianism), denial
of the perpetual obligation of social covenanting, pacifism, pietism,
socialism, premillennialism, and a refusal to recognize *lawful* civil
government as the ordinance of God. These unbiblical positions of the
Anabaptists were not tolerated by the Reformed Churches of the First and
Second Reformations, and neither should they be tolerated by any Church
today that claims to be Reformed or Presbyterian.
To those who would mindlessly hurl anabaptistic stones at churches
espousing the biblical principles of the Reformers (as found in the
citations above), the words of our Lord should be carefully heeded:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again (Mt. 7:1,2).
Thus, let us all remove the anabaptistic beam from our own eyes before
we seek to pull out the anabaptistic mote from our brother's eye.
Moreover, Reformed and Presbyterian Churches must repent of their
defection into anabaptistic tendencies and affirm again the biblical views
of their reformed forefathers in the following areas: the regulative
principle of worship, biblical unity founded upon the truth, biblical
separation from all churches who are constitutionally committed to false
doctrine and worship, and covenanted uniformity in doctrine, worship, and
government (through means of a faithful covenant as exemplified in the
Solemn League and Covenant, sworn and emitted by the Westminster
Assembly in 1643).
Finally, we must be willing to buy the truth of Christ and sell it not,
even when it appears to the majority that we are too few in number to be
committed with the truth. Let us never forget that it was to the two spies
(Joshua and Caleb) and not to the ten spies that Jehovah our God entrusted
His precious truth. Remember, God warns us that we are not to follow the
majority (multitude) to do evil (Ex. 23:2).
*It is an offense to a great many people that they see almost the whole
world opposed to us*. And indeed the patrons of a bad cause do not
neglect their own advantage, using a strategem like this so as not to upset
the ignorant and weak, that it is extremely absurd that almost the whole
Christian world is disregarded, *so that the faith is to be possessed by a
few men*. But, in particular, to destroy us they defend themselves with
the sacred title of "the Church" as if with a mallet. . . . If
anyone perhaps
objects that we are not excused by the example of Noah, if we separate
ourselves from that crowd which keeps the name of "the Church," *Isaiah
[Is.8:12-GLP], when he gave orders to abandon the conspiracy of men and
follow God alone, was referring not to strangers but to those who were
at that time glorying exceedingly in the name of the people of God*.92
**********
Endnotes
**********
1. John Calvin, Commentary on John 10:19, _Calvin's Commentaries_ (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), XVII:411. Emphases added.
2. Cited from the World Wide Web page entitled "Anabaptists."
Emphases
added.
3. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 110. Emphases
added.
4. Menno Simons, _Incarnation_ [1496-1561], cited by Benjamin Wirt
Farley, ed., _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 114,115, footnote 58. Emphases added.
5. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 2:306. Emphases
added.
6. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 114. Emphases
added.
7. _Westminster Larger Catechism_, Question 37. Emphases added.
8. Ibid., Question 39.
9. John Knox,_Works_ , V:121-122, cited by Kevin Reed, ed. in _A Warning
Against the Anabaptists_ (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage
Publications, 1984), p. 4. Emphases added.
10. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 1:614.
11. Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_ (AP&A, no date),
VIII:38.
12. Ray Sutton, "The Baptist Failure," _Christianianity &
Civilization_,
James B. Jordan, ed. (Geneva Divinity School, 1982), p. 156.
13. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 2:593,594. Emphases
added.
14. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 3:5. Emphases added.
15. _Westminster Shorter Catechism_, Question 33. Emphases added.
16. Kenneth Ronald Davis, _Anabaptism and Aceticism_ (Scottdale,
Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1974), p. 72. Emphases added.
17. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 1:98. Emphases
added.
18. Ibid., 2:83. Emphases added.
19. Willem Balke, _Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals_ (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 310. Emphases added.
20. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 1:8. Emphases added.
21. Ibid., 7:6. Emphases added.
22. Ray Sutton, "The Baptist Failure", _Christianity &
Civilization_, James
Jordan, ed., (Geneva Divinity School, 1982), p. 152. Emphases added.
23. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 3:23. Emphases
added.
24. Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_ (London: E.
Griffin, 1644), p. 261. Emphases added.
25. _The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government_ [1645] emitted by the
Westminster Assembly. Emphases added.
26. _The Divine Right of Church-Government_ originally asserted by the
Ministers of Sion College (London: December, 1646), pp. 7,8. Emphases are
in the original text.
27. Ibid., p. 238. Emphases added.
28. Michael Sattler,_The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 1.
Emphases added.
29. Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_ (AP&A, no date),
VIII:40.
30. _Westminster Shorter Catechism_, Question 95. Emphases added.
31. John Calvin, _Institutes_, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960) IV, xvi, 24:1347. Emphases added.
32. John Calvin, "The First Sermon, On Psalm 16:4", cited by Kevin
Reed,
ed., _Come Out From Among Them-The 'Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John
Calvin_ (Dallas, Texas: Protestant Heritage Press, forthcoming), p. 141.
Emphases added.
33. John Knox, _Works_ (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1846), I:195,196.
Emphases added.
34. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 21:1. Emphases added.
35. John Calvin, Opera, VI:171, cited by Michael Bushell, _The Songs of
Zion_ (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Crown and Covenant Publications, second
edition, 1993 [1977]), pp. 181,182. Emphases added.
36. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 21:5. Emphases added.
37. _The Directory For The Publick Worship Of God_, "Of Singing of
Psalms," emitted by the Westminster Assembly. Emphases added.
38. Abraham Van De Velde, _The Wonders Of The Most High or Indication
of the causes, ways and means whereby the United Provinces [of the
Netherlands-GLP], against the expectation of the whole world, were
elevated in such a marvelous way from their previous oppression to such
great, awe inspiring riches and acclaim. As related by several eminent
historians, and which after the manner of the time are compiled to a
necessary and profitable use_ (c.1674, first English translation
forthcoming), p. 125. Emphases added.
39. Ibid., pp. 125,126. Emphases added.
40. Michael Sattler,_The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 4.
Emphases added.
41. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 57. Emphases
added.
42. John Calvin, "Commentary on Psalm 15:1", _Calvin's
Commentaries_
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), IV:204. Emphases
added.
43. Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_ (London: E.
Griffin, 1644), p. 255. Emphases added.
44. Voetius, cited by James Fraser, _The Lawfulness and Duty of
Separation from Corrupt Ministers and Churches_ (Edinburgh: George
Patton, 1744), pp. xxxi,xxxii. Emphases added.
45. Michael Sattler, _The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 4.
Emphases added.
46. John Calvin, Institutes, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960), IV, i, 23:1036. Emphases added.
47. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 2:694. Emphases
added.
48. _The Westminster Confession of Faith_, 14:2.
49. John Owen, _Inquiry into the Nature and Communion of Evangelic
Churches_, p. 180, cited by Andrew Clarkson, _Plain Reasons for
Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution-Church in Scotland_ (1731),
p. 214. Emphasis added.
50. John Calvin, _Institutes_, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960), IV,II,12:1052,1053. Emphases added.
51. Michael Sattler, _The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 4.
Emphases added.
52. Ibid., Article 6. Emphases added.
53. Ibid., Article 4. Emphases added.
54. _Belgic Confession_, Article 36. Emphases added.
55. George Gillespie, _Wholesome Severity Reconciled_, cited in _An
Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature_ (Dallas, Texas:
Naphtali
Press, 1991 [1645]), 5:179,180,181. Emphases added.
56. Ibid., 5:180. Emphases added.
57. Ibid., p. 181. Emphases added.
58. For a more detailed discussion of biblical civil magistracy, consider
the author's recent book, _Biblical Civil Government Versus The Beast; &
The Basis For Civil Resistance_, also available through Still Waters
Revival Books.
59. _The Second Helvetic Confession_ [1566], Chapter 30, "Of
Magistracy."
Emphases added.
60. _The Confession of Basle_ [1532], Article 11. Emphases added.
61. Samuel Rutherford, _Lex, Rex, or The Law And The Prince_
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982 [1644]), p. 40.
Emphases added.
62. Samuel Wylie, _Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For Magistracy
And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis_ (Pottstown, Pennsylvania:
Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing,1995 [1803]), pp. 36,37.
63. John Cunningham, _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ (Glasgow: William
Marshall, 1843), p. 392. Emphases added.
64. John Calvin, _Institutes_, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960), IV,XX,2:1487. Emphases added.
65. _The Scottish Confession of Faith_, Chapter 24. Emphases added.
66. George Gillespie, _Works_ (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival
Books, 1991 [1846]), 1:12. Emphases added.
67. Abraham Van De Velde, _The Wonders Of The Most High or Indication
of
the causes, ways and means whereby the United Provinces [of the
Netherlands-GLP], against the expectation of the whole world, were
elevated in such a marvelous way from their previous oppression to such
great, awe inspiring riches and acclaim. As related by several eminent
historians, and which after the manner of the time are compiled to a
necessary and profitable use_ (c.1674, first English translation
forthcoming), p. 157. Emphases added.
68. _Westminster Larger Catechism_, Question 108. Emphases added.
69. _Westminster Larger Catechism_, Question 109. Emphases added.
70. Michael Sattler, _The Schleitheim Confession_, Article 7. Emphases
added.
71. Pamela Johnston and Bob Scribner, _The Reformation in Germany and
Switzerland_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 138.
Emphases added.
72. Ibid. Emphases added.
73. Ibid. Emphases added.
74. Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_ (London: E.
Griffin, 1644), p. 134. Emphases added.
75. For further information about the binding obligation of the Solemn
League and Covenant upon the United States and Canada, please consult
the author's forthcoming work which is available through Still Waters
Revival Books, _Are the United States and Canada Covenant-Breaking
Nations? _
76. _The Solemn League and Covenant_ [1643-GLP]. Emphases added.
77. _The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_, 4 June 1644, Session 7, "The
Letter from the Synod of Divines in the Kirk of England, to the General
Assembly", pp. 231,232. The original spelling and punctuation have been
retained. Emphases added.
78. Ibid., August 12, 1648, Session 40, "The Humble Supplication of the
Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland unto the Kings Most Excellent
Majesty", p. 439. The original spelling and punctuation have been
retained. Emphases added.
79. Cited by Clarence Carson, _Basic American Government_, (Wadley,
Alabama: American Textbook Committee, 1993), p. 126. Emphases added.
80. Cited on the World Wide Web page entitled, "State Library of North
Carolina," http://HAL.DCR.STATE.NC.US/ncs1home.htm. Emphases added.
81. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/106/8. Emphases added.
82. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28. Emphases added.
83. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28. Emphases added.
84. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T.
Dennison, Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 3:327.
Emphases added.
85. _The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_, 6 August 1649, Session
Ultimate, "A Brotherly Exhortation from the Generall Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, to their Brethren in England", pp. 474,475. The
original spelling and capitalization have been retained. Emphases added.
86. Willem Balke, _Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals_ (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 297, emphases added.
87. Philip Schaff, _History Of The Christian Church_ (AP&P), VIII:40.
88. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 3:327. Emphases
added.
89. John Owen,_Works_, 20:154, emphases added.
90. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 138,139,
emphases added.
91. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 32:1, emphases added.
92. John Calvin, _Concerning Scandals_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 109,110, emphases added.
9. APPENDIX B: PORNOGRAPHY, THE ANABAPTISTS AND DOUG WILSON'S
CIVIL ANTINOMIANISM by Reg Barrow (A special note of thanks is offered to Larry
Birger for his editorial expertise and assistance in completing this piece.)
"For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the
children of light" (Luke 16:8b).
The civil antinomianism which Doug Wilson adopts regarding pornography
and negative civil sanctions in "Cyberporn: A Case Study"
[_Credenda/Agenda_, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 11] is a fundamental error also
prevalent among antiestablishmentarian *modern* Theonomists. Wilson
believes that
"Christians must learn to distinguish sins from crimes. If God reveals
His
will on a matter, disobedience is sin. If God reveals the civil penalty which
must be applied, then it is also a crime. But without wisdom from Him on
the civil penalty to be applied, the civil order must leave enforcement of
God's law to the church, family, or the providence of God."
He further states that "when pornography is made and distributed, it
should simply be used as evidence -- of the adultery or of the sodomy,
etc." In his analogy between adultery/pornography and theft/movies
showing theft, he laments, "Why do we resist punishing what God
requires
punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in Scripture?"
In short, according to Wilson, because God in his word has *not specifically
mandated* negative civil sanctions against pornography *per se*, "with
a
biblical approach, pornography would not be [a] crime."
It bears mentioning that not all modern Theonomists agree with Wilson
that pornography is not a crime. For example, R. J. Rushdoony states,
"the
link between pornography and revolutionary totalitarianism is a necessary
one. The rise of totalitarianism has always been preceded by moral
anarchism... the politics of pornography is a moral anarchism whose
purpose is revolution, a revolution against Christian civilization. . . .
Certainly new and clearer legislation [against pornography--RB] is
*necessary and urgently needed*. . . we need and must have sound
legislation" (_Law and Liberty_, pp. 18-20; emphasis added). However,
others, like Greg Bahnsen (cf. his cassette "Pornography, Obscenity,
Censorship"), do concur that the making and distribution of
pornography,
generally, is not a crime. Regardless of some disagreement amongst
themselves, the idea that the civil magistrate is limited by *explicit*
biblical pronouncements in what and how he may punish is a teaching
some *modern* Theonomists (as opposed to biblical "*historical*
theonomists" like Calvin, Knox, Rutherford and Gillespie) have promoted
for about three decades. In fact, some in the movement even suggest this
"hyper-regulativism" (defined below) extends to the actual method
of
punishment, while others are content to apply it only to the crime and
negative sanction itself. Either way, its proponents insist that their view
alone provides an antidote to civil despotism by offering divinely
prescribed limitations on the civil magistrate's power in punishing
offenders of God's law. Such a view may sound pious, appeal to a
libertarian mentality, and appear to be the only possible check against
civil
tyranny, but it is in opposition to God's revealed will and therefore must
be rejected as just another form of modern heresy -- a heresy, which as
Rushdoony notes above, actually helps usher in civil tyranny.
There are a number of major problems with Wilson's principles and their
applications, and it may be helpful to survey some of these before giving a
more full refutation from history and Scripture.
To begin with, on the pornography question Wilson (and other *modern*
Theonomists) apply a *form* of "regulativism" (really "hyper-
regulativism"; see below) where it does not belong -- i.e. in the case
of
negative civil sanctions. Ironically, many of these same people also deny
(if
only by their practice; James 1:22; Titus 1:16) the true regulativism where
Scripture teaches it does belong -- i.e. in the public worship of God.
The regulative principle *of worship* has been skillfully handled in _The
Songs of Zion_ by Michael Bushell, _Instrumental Music in the Public
Worship of God_ by John Girardeau and _A Dispute Against English Popish
Ceremonies_ by George Gillespie, and reader is urged to consult these. For
our purposes here, we simply note that the regulative principle, as taught
and practiced by the Reformers, permitted only those acts of public
worship which had "divine warrant from God's Word either by (1)
command; or by (2) authorized example of the apostles; or by (3) good and
necessary inference" (Greg Price, _Foundation for Reformation: The
Regulative Principle of Worship_, p. 5).
The imposition of anything God has not prescribed has long been *rightly*
exposed and rejected in the area of *public worship* (cf. my _The
Regulative Principle of Worship in History_ [free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTPWors.htm
], my
_Psalm Singing in Scripture and History_ [free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTPsSing.htm
] and
my _Doug Wilson's Five Questions on the Regulative Principle of Worship
Answered_ [free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Doug5Qs.htm
]).Wilso
n and other *modern* Theonomists, however, take this approach not to
*worship*, but to *negative civil sanctions*. As he says, "We do not
have
the capacity to legislate wisely where God has been *silent*" (emphasis
added). Not only does he make a *fundamental* mistake in attempting to
apply a form of the "regulative principle" to negative civil
sanctions, he
takes it one step further by misconstruing the regulative principle itself.
Wilson's form of "regulativism" in the civil sphere denies "good
and
necessary inference" (an integral part of the true regulative
principle), and
therefore cannot be rightly called biblical regulativism without causing
some confusion. Hence, I call Wilson's view "hyper-regulativism"
because
he makes the regulative principle *more strict* than do the Scriptures, or
the Reformers who expounded this principle from the teaching of
Scripture. Furthermore, Wilson's rejection of what Samuel Rutherford
termed "logical or natural consequences," and what the _Westminster
Confession of Faith_ (1:6) designates as that which "by good and
necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture," (when applied to the
pornography question before us) does not comport with the classical
Protestant position on negative civil sanctions.
The combination of these errors by Wilson, in the distortion (through the
denial of natural consequences) and misapplication of the regulative
principle, actually turn the making and distribution of pornography into a
*civil right* (except for certain *actual participants* who explicitly
violate
biblical judicial laws; i.e. those actually committing the acts of adultery,
sodomy, etc. in the making of the pornography). Noted author and
Reconstructionist-turned-Covenanter, Michael Wagner (who is presently
completing his doctorate in political science), has defined one aspect of
civil
rights as "imposing an obligation on the state not to interfere with
some
aspect of an individual's life by applying negative civil sanctions."
This
definition, given Wilson's view of pornography, would grant most aspects
of the pornography industry a *civil right* (based on Scripture falsely
interpreted) to practice their vile trade freely, without any threat of
civil
punishment; and, according to ministries like _Credenda/Agenda_ (unless
they disagree with their editor), such actions would have a kind of
"civil
blessing" from God, inasmuch as Scripture allegedly *forbids* negative
civil
sanctions against pornographers.
Even more, not only would the making and distribution of pornography be
a civil right (and not a crime), but it would actually be a **sin** for the
civil government to intervene and violate Wilson's
"hyper-regulativism" in
such cases (outside of "simply" using the pornography "as
evidence -- of
the adultery or of the sodomy, etc." in civil trials). Sin is "any
want of
conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God" (_Westminster
Shorter Catechism_ question and answer 14). By applying negative civil
sanctions to the pornographers the civil government would be doing that
which God has given them *no mandate* to do; and thus, in Wilson's
scheme, the civil government would "lack conformity unto... the law of
God" in punishing pornographers. As Wilson writes, "If God reveals
His will
on a matter, disobedience is sin;" and, "Why do we resist
punishing what
God requires punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in
Scripture?" Therefore, if God has indeed revealed his will on this
matter --
that most pornographers are *not* criminals -- then *for the civil
government to treat them as such* is sin.
We cannot escape this conclusion to which the regulative principle drives
us. For example, concerning public worship, if everything except that
which God has instituted is forbidden (outside of "some
circumstances...
common to human actions and societies"; cf. Westminster Confession,
1:6),
then any addition of elements and regulated circumstances not instituted
of God for use in public worship (e.g. man-made hymns, musical
instruments, drama, dance, women preachers, holy days other than the
Sabbath, etc.) is, of necessity, sin. The same is also true if Wilson's
"hyper-
regulativism" is to be applied to negative civil sanctions. The
addition of
any negative civil sanctions *not explicitly revealed* in Scripture would be
a transgression much akin to the sin we speak against in the sphere of
public worship. Thus, Wilson must argue that a civil government that
enacts laws for which it has no biblical warrant, such as laws against the
possession, production and/or distribution of pornography, ***must be
sinning***.
On a practical level, the situation that has developed in the African nation
of Zambia may be instructive here. Shortly after Zambia threw off her
communism and embraced Christianity as the official state religion it was
reported that "whether by accident or design, new found freedoms also
led
to the legalization of pornography and abortion" ("Those Who Walk
In
Darkness, Will See A Great Light... The Christian Reconstruction of
Zambia"
by Abshire, free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/zambia.htm
). In the
case of pornography, was this a good or bad testimony to the other nations
of the world? Wilson would have to say that it was very good, as it was in
keeping with God's (alleged) instruction concerning negative civil
sanctions.
The communists kept the nation relatively free of pornography but a
professedly Christian government actually initially legalized it (along with
abortion) -- and Wilson's views would have the Zambians
"glorifying" God
by legalizing pornography! (One wonders where the civil leaders of Zambia
originally got the idea that it was honoring to God that pornography be
free from negative civil sanctions!) But , thanks be to God, it came to pass
that,
"the Zambian government then took a most encouraging turn. President
Chiluba made a public speech against pornography and called for its total
eradication. This was followed by vigorous action by the Zambian police in
rooting out all publicly displayed pornography and arresting those who
sold it. Representations of Zambia Christian Action convinced the Zambian
government to have the police burn the pornography on the streets
wherever it was found" (ibid.).
Given these developments in Zambia it would now seem appropriate for
_Credenda/Agenda_ to provide a short article (their specialty) rebuking
the Zambian civil government for "backsliding" into this latter
state of
affairs (by enacting negative civil sanctions against those involved with
pornography). After all, "Why do [Zambians] . . . insist on punishments
found nowhere in Scripture? . . . [Zambians] must learn to distinguish sins
from crimes. If God reveals His will on a matter, disobedience is sin. If
God
reveals the civil penalty which must be applied, then it is also a crime.
But
without wisdom from Him on the civil penalty to be applied, the [Zambian]
civil order must leave enforcement of God's law to the church, family, or
the providence of God." Articles, attacking the faithful, are becoming
more
common in the pages of _Credenda/Agenda_, so the production of such a
column should not catch many off guard -- especially if _C/A's_ writers
turn the Zambian's faithfulness on this matter (and disagreement with
them) into some kind of a joke or parody (thus confusing people into
believing something about such righteous actions which have nothing to do
with what has actually transpired in reality). Beware the man who is
*quick* to jest about sin or other serious matters related to the kingdom of
God (Eph. 5:3-4). Somehow I doubt we will ever see such an article
(rebuking the Zambian's) from our "jovial" (I'm being kind)
friends; for I
think -- or at least hope -- that they are already wiser than the principles
Wilson espouses in "Cyberporn: A Case Study." But, if no rebuke to
the
Zambian civil government (for their "sin" of outlawing
pornography) is
forthcoming from _Credenda/Agenda_, a public retraction of Wilson's
published principles may be in order. But alas...
Having thus given a brief overview of some of the glaringly absurd and
destructive problems inherent in Wilson's position, we now turn to an
examination of irrefutable historical and Scriptural evidences against it.
We will thereby briefly, but I believe sufficiently, demonstrate that Doug
Wilson's position (though we doubt that he holds to it consistently) on the
application (or lack thereof) of negative civil sanctions, especially
regarding pornographers, is not the "classical Protestant"
position, nor is it
biblical.
Beginning with some historic proof we find that Wilson's "hyper-
regulativism" can be soundly refuted in citations taken from the
individual
(major) Reformers, their confessions and their covenants. Our first quote is
taken from _Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty; or, the
True Resolution of a Present Controversy Concerning Liberty of
Conscience_ by George Gillespie (1644; free at:
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/wholsome.html). Gillespie, one of the
Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, here illustrates that
the basis of Wilson's position has historically been used by at least one
Anabaptist. Gillespie writes,
"I have endeavored in the following discourse to vindicate the lawful,
yea
necessary use of the coercive power of the Christian Magistrate in
suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries, *according as the degree
of their offense and of the Church's danger shall require*: Which when I
had done, there came to my hands a book called _The Storming of
Antichrist_ (by Christopher Blackwood, 1644--RB). Indeed, "The
Recruiting
of Antichrist, and the Storming of Zion" (if so be that I may
*anabaptize an
Anabaptist's book*). Take one passage for instance (p.25): 'And for
Papists,'
says he, 'though they are least to be borne of all others, because of the
uncertainty of their keeping faith with heretics, as they call us, and
because they may be absolved of securements that can arise from the just
solemn oaths, and because of their cruelty against the Protestants in
diverse countries where they get the upper hand, and because they are
professed idolaters, yet may they be born with (as I suppose with
submission to better judgments) in Protestant government, in point of
religion, **because we have no command** to root out any for
conscience,'"
etc. (1644 edition, p. v, emphases added).
Note that this Anabaptist's tolerationism is built on the same foundation
Wilson insists is the magistrate's guide regarding negative civil sanctions.
The Anabaptist argues that we must not punish the "papists"
because "we
have **no command** to root out any for conscience" (emphasis added).
Gillespie subsequently distinguishes the truth from the error in the
Anabaptist's statement (on tolerationism and conscience), but for our
purpose it illustrates that this was one instance where Wilson's principle
of
civil hyper-regulativism is called upon to justify the Anabaptist position
regarding civil penal sanctions.
I also addressed this question on pages 17-18 of my work, _John Knox,
Oliver Cromwell, God's Law and the Reformation of Civil Government_:
"One further example of weakness in the modern Theonomic movement is
found in the application of the *regulative principle to civil penal
sanctions*. This idea has led some to such logical extremes that they would
deny the civil government the right (or should I say duty) to censor or
prohibit the *investment* in, or the *distribution* and *sale* of,
pornographic materials (the seventh commandment notwithstanding). In
such a 'Theonomic' state hard-core pornographic movies, books and
magazines would be protected by a 'Theonomic' civil legal code -- while
the 'Theonomic' police would have authority (based on a constitution which
establishes the application of the regulative principle to civil penal
sanctions) to apprehend *only* those who have *participated* in the
adultery, fornication or sodomy of the pornography *itself*. The regulative
principle, when applied to penal sanctions, would insure all other 'non
participants' the constitutional *right* to involve themselves in the chain
of
production and distribution of pornographic materials, because the civil
penal sanctions of the Old Testament don't *specifically* cite them as
offenders. One further example would involve the sixth commandment.
Would it be no crime to hire, counsel or plan a murder that was carried out
by another because the penal sanctions do not *specify* anything other
than the *actual murdering* as the crime? Obviously, matters must be
judged in regard to allowing for an interpretation of Scripture, concerning
crime and punishment, which takes into account those things which can,
'by good and necessary consequence... be deduced from Scripture'
(_Westminster Confession of Faith_, ch. 1, sect. 6). Questions 91 to 151 of
the _Westminster Larger Catechism_ would be an indispensably helpful
guide to the civil magistrate here."
In this vein Gillespie notes:
"Fourthly, I distinguish between bare opinions or speculations, and
scandalous or pernicious practices, as Mr. Burton does in his _Vindication
of the Independent Churches_. 'You must distinguish,' he says, 'between
men's consciences and their practices.The conscience simply considered in
itself is for God, the lord of conscience alone to judge, as before. But for
a
man's practices (of which alone man can take cognizance) **if they be
against *any* of God's commandments, of the first or the second table; that
appertains to the Civil Magistrate to punish**, who is for this cause called
custos utriusque tabuloe, the keeper of both tables.' For this he cites Rom.
13:3-4, and he adds, 'So as we see here that is the object of civil power,
to
wit, actions good or bad, not bare opinions, not thoughts, not conscience,
but actions.' And this in his answer to the interrogatory concerning the
lawful coercive power of the civil Magistrates in suppressing heresies. In
which he handsomely yielded the point, for who advises the Parliament to
punish men for their thoughts, bare opinions, or for conscience simply
considered in itself? It is for preaching, **printing, spreading** of
dangerous opinions, for schismatical, pernicious and scandalous practices,
for drawing factions among the people contrary to the covenant [the
Solemn League and Covenant -- RB], for resisting the reformation of
religion, for lying and railing against the covenant [the Solemn League and
Covenant -- RB], the Parliament, the [Westminster -- RB] Assembly of
Divines, or against the Reformed Churches" (_Wholesome Severity_, p.
34,
emphases added).
Likewise:
"Those that are in authority are to take such courses and so to rule,
that we
may not only lead a quiet and peaceable life, but further that it be in all
godliness and honesty (1 Tim. 2:2). The Magistrate is keeper of both tables,
and is to punish the violation of the first table, as well as of the second.
3.
'Will any man,' says Augustine, 'who is in his right wit, say to Kings,
"Do not
care by whom the Church of God in your Kingdom is maintained or
opposed; it does not concern your Kingdom, who will be religious, who
sacrilegious:" to whom, notwithstanding, it cannot be said, "It
does not
concern you in your Kingdom who is chaste, who whorish," etc. Is the
soul's
keeping faith and truth to God a lighter matter, than that of a woman to a
man?'" (_Wholesome Severity_, p. 14).
In another place Gillespie goes so far as to say that
"though *other* judiciall or forensecall laws concerning the punishments
of
sins against the Moral law, may, yea, *must* be allowed of in Christian
Republickes; Provided always they be **not contrary** to Gods own
Judiciall laws: yet I fear not to hold with Junius, _de Politia Mosis_ cap.
6,
that he who was punishable by death under the Judiciall law, is punishable
by death still; and he who was not punishable by death them, in not to be
punished by death now" (_Wholesome Severity_, p. 9, emphases added).
So we see, whereas Wilson would not even have the godly magistrate
protect the public for the "lesser" second table physical
whoredoms (of
pornography), Gillespie would have the magistrate punish for the
"greater"
first table spiritual whoredoms (e.g. tolerationism, heresy, false worship,
etc.). Wilson says that we need **specific institution** for sanctions;
Gillespie says that the magistrate can punish as long as the punishment is
"**not contrary** to Gods own Judiciall laws." The antithesis is
clear: either
Gillespie and his fellow Covenanters at Westminster were wrong on this
point, or Wilson, the "Classical Protestant"; for there are no
revealed penal
sanctions which specifically call upon the magistrate to punish people
"for
drawing factions among the people contrary to the covenant [the Solemn
League and Covenant -- RB]... for lying and railing against the covenant
[the Solemn League and Covenant -- RB], the [English -- RB] Parliament ,
the [Westminster -- RB] Assembly of Divines, or against the Reformed
Churches." Negative civil sanctions for these crimes must be
specifically 'by
good and necessary consequence... deduced from Scripture' (_Westminster
Confession of Faith_, ch. 1, sect. 6). Clearly, Gillespie and other
*historic*
theonomists oppose Wilson and many *modern* Theonomists.
John Knox's "Appellation... to the Scottish Nobility" in volume 4
of his
_Works_ also refutes Wilson's civil regulativism. In this appeal Knox
repudiates the use of the regulative principle to guide magistrates (in
regard to negative civil sanctions) when he notes that we are to submit to
the laws of the magistrate except "*such as be expressly repugning to
God's
commandment*" (cited in Knox's "Appellation" as printed in
_John Knox on
Rebellion_, R.A. Mason, ed. [Cambridge University Press, 1994], p. 107; see
also the discussion of Westminster Confession 20:2,4 below). This is not the
regulative principle applied to negative civil sanctions, which Wilson sets
forth (i.e. only that which is expressly *instituted* of God is a lawful
negative civil sanction), but the Reformation principle of negative civil
sanctions, which allows for sanctions rightly **deduced from Scripture
"by
good and necessary consequence"**. The bulk of Reformed divines
believed
that God allows the magistrate much more room to *apply* Scripture to the
area of negative sanctions -- as the Judges in Israel of old did, as well as
a
father disciplining his children -- than our modern
"Presbyterians" and
Theonomists do. Samuel Rutherford clearly states, "that which the
*master
of a christian family* may doe, that the *father of the Common-wealth the
King*, in his place may doe" (_A Free Disputation Against Pretended
Liberty of Conscience, p. 176; emphasis added).
One contemporary author who has diagnosed part of the problem with
applying the regulative principle to the state, writes:
"I have read in other places the argument that government should have
no
involvement in education because the Bible does not give instructions for it
to be involved. These authors set forward what I call the 'regulative
principle of the state.' Just as the regulative principle of worship says
that
what is not explicitly commanded is therefore forbidden, the regulative
principle of the state says that what is not explicitly commanded to the
government is forbidden. This principle is, as far as I know, without
significant precedent in Church history, lacking in exegetical support, and
leads to absurd policy implications (e.g. the elimination of traffic laws).
This "libertarian model" of Christian statesmanship is inferior to
the
historic Calvinist view, which I call the 'patriarchal model.'" (Jerry
Bowyer,
_Christian Statesman_ magazine, "Bowyer's Blast" in the
Educational Choice
Issue, January/Feb., 1993).
This leads us to some incisive questions. Is the state really forbidden to
intervene, because there is no explicit or specific biblical law mandating
civil punishment against those who would *corrupt the morals of young
children* through the use of lewd pictures? What about when hard core
pornography is being displayed in a local community playground (or the
local corner store)? Are we really to think that a godly civil magistrate
would be honoring God by allowing triple X billboards on public highways
because there is *no specific negative civil sanction* against the public
display of such morally reprehensible trash -- only negative civil sanctions
against those who actually participated in the act, as Wilson asserts? And
what if the participants were married, or only one person was before the
camera? Are pornographers then free from any form of punishment? Is
there a *specific* negative civil sanction against *watching* married
couples copulating or against self stimulation for public viewing? Against
filming such acts? Against publicly displaying the film? Against selling the
film? Against selling the film to minors? Is God really a civil libertarian?
Or is He a "covenanter"? Can we lay on our beds at night and thank
God in
prayer that He is biblically glorified by a civil government that protects
those that *publicly* pimp off of the base lusts forbidden in Scripture --
rather than bringing negative civil sanctions against them? Or would we
not rather bless God for his benevolent ordinance of civil government
which, rightly functioning, would have delivered us from the filth that has
defiled so many, and which continues to sound its siren song? Can a
*public* moral wrong, which is an affront to God (openly violating the
seventh commandment) and destructive to society (violating the fifth and
tenth commandments), be a civil right? Or should it be punished by the
civil magistrate?
Just stop for a moment and try to thank God in prayer that pornographers
(at just about every level -- excepting paedophiles -- from production to
distribution) are free from civil punishment in our society today. In
attempting such a prayer, at a very practical level (by the testimony and
witness of the Holy Spirit with your spirit) you should know immediately
and intuitively that pornography is not a civil right positively sanctioned
by Scripture. If fact, if your conscience is acting in accord with truth,
you
should also clearly see what the civil magistrate should *deduce from
Scripture, by good and necessary consequence* regarding negative civil
sanctions against pornographers (unless, of course, you have become so
hardened that you can falsely "bless" God in prayer that the
pandering
dogs of pornography are free from civil sanctions). And, it should be
carefully noted that these same type of questions -- which produce such
horrid answers if approached with Wilson's principles of biblical
interpretation -- may with equal force and revulsion be asked of other
areas. For example, is there a *specific* negative civil sanction in the
Scripture against *promoting* Nazism (or similar immoral political
philosophies, ideas and/or antichristian civil governments)? Or was Paul
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's official propagandist, undeserving of civil
sanctions in his marketing of Hitler and his murderous and tyrannical
regime? The reader is left to continue this reductio ad absurdum (see the
end of this essay for other examples) and conclude for himself whether
Wilson and *modern* Theonomy really provide the check against civil
tyranny as they claim; whether their conception of the civil magistrate
really is "the minister of God to thee for good" (Rom. 13:4).
"Wisdom is
justified of her children" (Matt. 11:19) and the offspring of Wilson's
and
many *modern* Theonomists' principles (on this point) are illegitimate --
and look much more like the bastard children of the Anabaptists and
Libertines.
As an interesting side note, we also see that the application of the
regulative principle to civil penal sanctions (what we might rightly term a
"sub-theonomic" view of God's law) ties closely together with the
antiestablimentarianism prominent in many Reconstructionist and
"evangelical" circles today. Antiestablishmentarianism is also
another
aspect of Anabaptist thought that finds its ways into the pages of
_Credenda/Agenda_ (when was the last _Credenda/Agenda_ article, much
less entire issue, defending -- or even mentioning -- the truth of
establishmentarianism?), and sadly much of the modern "Reformed"
community as well adopts this species of defection (moving away from
Reformation attainments to the innovations and heresies of the
Anabaptists). We will not discuss extensively why Wilson's view of civil
sanctions is the sister to antiestablishmentarianism, but the Anabaptist
connection is clearly evident. Cunningham notes:
"Under the general head of the civil magistrate, or of civil
magistracy, --
that is, in the exposition of what is taught in Scripture concerning the
functions and duties of the supreme civil authority of a nation, whatever
be its form of government, -- *the Reformers were unanimous and decided
in asserting what has been called in modern times the principle of national
establishments of religion*, -- namely, that it is competent to, and
incumbent upon, nations, as such, and civil rulers in their official
capacity,
or in the exercise of their legitimate control over civil matters, to aim at
the promotion of the honour of God, the welfare of true religion, and the
prosperity of the church of Christ. This principle, which comprehends or
implies the whole of what we are concerned to maintain upon the subject
of national establishments of religion, we believe to be fully sanctioned by
Scripture; and we can appeal, in support of it, to the decided and
unanimous testimony of the Reformers, -- *while the Anabaptists of that
period seem to have been the first, if we except the Donatists of the fifth
century, who stumbled upon something like the opposite doctrine*, or
what is now-a-days commonly called the Voluntary principle" (William
Cunningham, _Historical Theology_, Still Waters Revival Books, [1882]
reprinted 1991, vol. 2, pp. 559-560, emphases added).
According to the Anabaptists, then, it was not the civil magistrate's
official
task "to aim at the promotion of the honour of God, the welfare of true
religion, and the prosperity of the church of Christ" by causing the
nation,
in her official character, to make a public confession of the one true
reformed religion, to the exclusion and suppression of all contrary heresies
and corruptions. If, rather, his job is to ensure every citizen's
"freedom to
choose" their own religious practices (even if only amongst the
differing
sects of Christianity) then it is not difficult to see the link between
"freedom" in this area and "freedom of speech" in
disseminating
pornography. And, we need look no farther than the United States, with its
dogmatic religious pluralism and thriving pornographic market, for
verification.
Citations could be multiplied from Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649, the best Dutch Synods,
other Reformed Confessions, etc., to offer further historical
"Classical
Protestant" support of our position and opposition to Wilson's. We will
consider only four more, however: another from Gillespie; one from _The
Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin_; a
third from the Solemn League and Covenant; and the fourth, and perhaps
most powerful, from a fruit of that Covenant, the Westminster Confession
of Faith.
Turning again to _Wholesome Severity_, we find mentioned a number of
others who concur with the position on civil punishment here set forth. In
answering the question of "Whether Christian Judges may lawfully punish
Hereticks" (p. 1), Gillespie deals with three views, first disposing of
the
Papists' opinion, "who hold it to be no sin, but good service to God,
to
extirpate by fire and sword, all that are adversaries to, or opposers of the
Church and Catholick Religion" (p. 1).
He then says,
"The second opinion falls short, as far as the former exceeds: that is,
that
the Magistrate ought not to inflict any punishment, nor put forth any
coercive power upon Heretics or Sectaries, but on the contrary grant them
liberty and toleration. This was the opinion of the Donatists, against which
Augustine has written both much and well, in diverse places: though [he]
himself was once in the same error, till he took the matter into his second
better thoughts, as is evident by his Retractations (lib. 2, cap. 2, &
epist.
48). In the same error are the Socinians and Arminians (See Peltii
Harmonia, Artic. 21; Nic. Bodecher, Sociniano. Remonstrantismus, cap.25.
See also Grotii Apologeticus, cap. 6, p. 130; Theoph. Nicolaid,
Refut.Tractat.
de Ecclesia cap. 4, p. 33). The very same is maintained in some books
printed amongst ourselves in this year of confusion: viz. The Bloody Tenent
[by Roger Williams -- RB]; Liberty of Conscience; The Compassionate
Samaritan; John the Baptist; and by Mr. [Thomas--RB] Goodwin [the
Independent --RB] in his Theomaxia, p.50, and in his Innocencies Triumph,
p.8. In which places he denies that the Magistrate, and particularly that
the two houses of Parliament, may impose anything pertaining to the
service and worship of God under fines or penalties. So M.S. to A.S. (pp.
53-
55, &c.), disputes against the coercive power of the Magistrate to
suppress
Heresies and Sects" (pp. 2-3).
Finally, Gillespie gives the classical Protestant position:
"The third opinion is that **the Magistrate may and ought to exercise
his
coercive power, in suppressing and punishing Heretics and Sectaries, less
or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schism, obstinacy,
and danger of seducing others, requires**. As this was the judgment of the
orthodox ancients (_vide Optati opera_, edit. Albaspin, p. 204, 215), so it
is
followed by our soundest Protestant writers; most largely by Beza against
Bellius and Monfortius, in a peculiar treatise, _De Hareticis a Magistratu
puniendis_. And though Gerhard, Brochmand, and other Lutheran writers,
make a controversy where they need not, alleging that the Calvinists (so
nicknamed) hold as the Papists do, that all Heretics without distinction are
to be put to death: the truth is, they themselves say as much as either
Calvin or Beza, or any other whom they take for adversaries in this
question, that is, that heretics are to be punished by *fines, imprisonment,
banishments*, and if they be gross idolaters or blasphemers, and seducers
of others, then to be put to death. What else does Calvin teach, when he
distinguishes three kinds of errors: some to be tolerated with a spirit of
meekness, such as ought not to [cause] separation between brothers; others
not to be tolerated, but to be suppressed with a certain degree of severity;
[and] a third sort so abominable, and pestiferous, that they are to be cut
off
by the highest punishment? And lest it be thought that this is but the
opinion of some few, that the Magistrate ought thus by a strong hand, and
by civil punishments suppress Heretics and Sectaries: let it be observed
what is held forth and professed concerning this business, by the Reformed
Churches in their public confessions of faith. In the latter Confession of
Helvetica (cap.30), it is said that the Magistrate ought to "root out
lies and
all superstition, with all impiety and idolatry." And after, "Let
him
suppress stubborn Heretics." In the French Confession (art. 39),
"Therefore
he hath also delivered the sword into the hands of Magistrates, to wit, that
offenses may be repressed, not only those which are committed against the
second table, but also against the first." In the Belgic Confession
(art. 36),
"Therefore hath he armed the Magistrates with the sword for punishing
them that do evil, and for defending such as do well. Moreover it is their
duty not only to be careful and watchful for the preservation of the civil
government, but also to defend the holy ministry, and to abolish and
overthrow all idolatry, and counterfeit worship of God." Beza, _De
Hareticis_, tells us in the beginning, that the ministers of Helvetia had
declared themselves to be of the same judgment, in a book published of
that argument. And toward the end he cites the Saxon Confession, Luther,
Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus, Wolfangus Capito, and Bullinger. The Synod
of Dordt (ses. 138), in their sentence against the Remonstrants not only
interdicts them of all their ecclesiastical and academical functions, *but
also beseeches the States General by their secular power further to
suppress and restrain them*" (pp. 3-5, emphases added; spelling and
some
wording modernized).
Moving next to _The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the
Time of Calvin_ (P.E. Hughes, ed. and trans., Eerdmans, 1966), it is evident
that Wilson's view of negative civil sanctions was alien to Calvin and the
Geneva Presbyteries. Blasphemies, contradiction of the Word, drunkenness,
usury over five percent, dissolute games, missing church, being late for
sermons, women (midwives) baptizing, superstitious worship, observing
Romish festival days, attending Mass, etc., all came under civil cognizance
(usually fines, pp. 53-59). Never mind punishing pornographers, the
Genevans correctly deduced from the seventh commandment that "anyone
who sings indecent, dissolute, or outrageous songs, or dances the fling or
some similar dance shall be imprisoned for three days and shall then be
sent before the Consistory" (p. 58). This, and even stronger laws,
could be
used in our day to rid the land of the Devil's minstrels, and all the
literary
"pornography" (in the form of the antichristian propositions that
infect our
society through Rock and Country music, blasphemous comedy, etc.) that
bombards us through radio and television. Is there any real question how
AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Madonna,
Michael Jackson, "Rappers" or even Shania Twain (and their videos)
would
fare among the real classical Protestants? How much more those who
corrupt the nations with pornography!
Thirdly, we consider an illustrative section from the Solemn League and
Covenant (SL&C), the bond that joined the nations and churches of
England,
Scotland and Ireland in a covenanted "uniformity in religion,
confession of
faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and
catechising"
(Head 1). The portion in question is Head 4, which we simply reproduce
with appropriate emphases (noting that reference can be made to the _The
Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the Year
1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_ for further understanding of the original
intent and actual implementation of this section of the SL&C, concerning
the question of negative civil sanctions):
"We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery
[disclosing or
making known -- RB] of *all* such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion,
dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or
making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League
and Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive
*condign [appropriate -- RB] punishment*, as the **degree of their offences
shall require or deserve**, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, **shall
judge convenient [suitable or proper -- RB].**"
Finally, we look at the fourth and perhaps most powerful example, taken
from chapter 20 of the **original** Westminster Confession of Faith,
"Of
Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience." Section 2 of that chapter
teaches, "God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free
from the
doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing **contrary**
to his word, or *beside it*, in matters of faith or worship." Section 4
condemns practices subversive of lawful power and lawful exercise thereof
which might plead Christian liberty for their warrant. It frankly describes
the biblical sanctions due to such offenders: "And for their
***publishing***
of such opinions, or **maintaining** of such practices, as are **contrary to
the light of nature**, or to faith, worship, ***or conversation [conduct or
behavior -- RB]***; or ***to the power of godliness***; or such erroneous
opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of
publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and
order which Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be
called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church,
***and by the power of the civil magistrate***.
Note carefully the distinction between the qualifiers, "contrary
to" and
"beside" the word of God in Section 2. The latter,
"beside", is a reference to
the regulative principle of worship which teaches that God may only be
worshiped in ways "prescribed in the Holy Scripture" (cf. 21:1).
Anything
*beyond (or "beside") this*, except those "circumstances . .
. common to
human actions and societies" (1:6) is strictly forbidden in public
worship.
"Contrary to," on the other hand, is applied to all other
"doctrines and
commandments of men," which would include (according to the *historic*
theonomists at Westminster) the laws and punishments of the civil
magistrate. We saw this view in our earlier mention of John Knox, and it
truly is the "Classical Protestant" position as taught by the
reformers and
their creeds.
This observation on Section 2 alone overthrows Wilson's position. Even
more pointed, however, is the wording in Section 4, which not only
contradicts Wilson's principles, but would subject Wilson himself to the
civil sanctions of a truly biblical magistrate. This is evident because
Wilson
(and many *modern* Theonomists) are "publishing such opinions . . . as
are
contrary to the light of nature . . . or conversation [conduct or behavior
--
RB]; or to the power of godliness," inasmuch as they declare most of
those
involved in the making and dissemination of pornography (excepting
certain participants) to be free of negative civil sanctions. Of course,
this
says nothing of their erroneous views of worship which likewise are
"contrary to . . . the power of godliness" and "are
destructive to the
external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church."
(Cf.
Larry Birger's copious citations from the National Covenant and Solemn
League and Covenant which prove the same point regarding his former
elders, in "Why The PCA Is Not A Duly Constituted Church, And Why
Faithful Christians Should Separate From This Corrupt Communion," free
on
the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PCAbad.htm
).
It is time for those like Wilson to acknowledge that not only are they *not*
holding to the positions of our reformed forefathers, but these very
forefathers (as evidenced by their national **confessions and covenants**)
would have sought civil sanctions against them if they did not repent of
their errors! Then, based on this admission they must either repent (as we
ourselves have done by the grace of God) or cease claiming to be the
progeny of the Reformation.
Even a cursory survey of the small amount of historical evidence
presented above renders impossible the conclusion that Doug Wilson (and
a number of *modern* Theonomists) adopt anything near the classical
Protestant position on negative penal sanctions. But historical practice is
no
rule outside of its agreement to Scripture; so we now turn to some clear
examples revealed by "the supreme Judge, by which all controversies of
religion are to be determined" (WCF 1:10).
Gillespie, in "Whether it be lawful, just, and expedient, that the
taking of
the Solemn League and Covenant be enjoined by the Parliament upon all
persons in the kingdom under a considerable penalty" (Chapter 16 of
"A
Treatise of Miscellany Questions," pp. 85-88 in _The Works of George
Gillespie_ volume 2, Still Waters Revival Books reprint -- or free at
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/SL&CGil.htm
),
presents a *positive* biblical example of approved negative civil sanctions
which are nowhere *expressly* revealed in the portions of Scripture
dealing with the laws related to civil punishments:
"When king Josiah made a solemn covenant (the effect whereof was a
thorough reformation, the taking away of the ancient and long-continued
high places, the destroying of Baal's vessels, altars, priests, &c. 2
Kings 23,
throughout), he did not leave his covenant arbitrary; but 'he caused all
that
were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it,' 2 Chron. 34: 32. In
all which he is set forth as a precedent to Christian reformers, that they
may know their duty in like cases" (p. 86).
Likewise, his comments in _Wholesome Severity_ (p. 10):
"Josiah caused 'all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to
stand to
the Covenant,' 2 Chron, 34:32, which could not be without either
threatening or inflicting punishment upon the transgressors; there being
many at that time disaffected to the Reformation."
Did Josiah "not have the capacity to legislate wisely where God had
been
silent," as Wilson contends? Where in Scripture is Josiah, as king,
told to
**cause** "all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand
to"
this *particular covenant*? Does Scripture commend or condemn Josiah's
work as a covenanting king?
Another clear example, contrary to Wilson's position (as noted in my, _A
Contemporary Covenanting Debate; or, Covenanting Redivivus_; free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovDebRB.htm
), is
King Asa -- who "nationally caused (by civil power) the inhabitants of
the
nation to stand to the covenant." The Scripture relates it thus:
"So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month,
in
the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. And they offered unto the LORD the
same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and
seven thousand sheep. And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD
God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; *That
whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death,
whether small or great, whether man or woman*. And they sware unto the
LORD with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with
cornets. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all
their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of
them: and the LORD gave them rest round about" (2 Chron. 15:10-15).
Was this **particular** covenant renewal revealed in Scripture as a duty
which king Asa was to enact (in his civil capacity over the nation), or was
this civil duty deduced by Asa "by good and necessary consequence"
from
the moral law of God? (See "Covenanting a Duty," chapter 3 in John
Cunningham's _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ for a *detailed* explanation
of the answer.) Were the *negative civil sanctions* attached to the
malignants (covenant refusers) in Judah *explicitly* revealed or were they
also deduced from Scripture, "by good and necessary consequence,"
from
the moral law of God? Was God "found of them" for these actions?
Was Asa,
at this point in his reign, a Covenanter or an Anabaptist? On this point is
Wilson closer to the Covenanters or the Anabaptists?
Samuel Rutherford touches on matters related to negative penal sanctions
in numerous places in his _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty
of Conscience_ (1649). Pertinent, in principle, to the Scriptural question
before us are Rutherford's comments when he writes,
"but they had just powers, as the [civil -- RB] Ministers of God, to
punish
seducing Prophets as well as other ill-doers, by the law of nature and
Nations. And this I take is holden forth by Job 31.26,27,28. *who being
under no Judicial Law*, obliging the Jewes, but a Gentile, and so in this
led
**by the Law of nature and Nations**, maketh Idolatry and worshipping of
the Sunne and Moone, to be an iniquity to be punished by the Judge"
(_Free Disputation, p. 313, emphases added).
Two final Scriptural examples follow demonstrating that God approves of
negative civil sanctions which are not *explicitly* revealed in the judicial
law.
The first is found in Ezra's godly example during the covenanted
Reformation of his day.
"Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the
wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord,
and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be
done according to the law. Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we
also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. Then arose Ezra, and
made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they
should do according to this word. And they sware. Then Ezra rose up from
before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of
Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water:
for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried
away. And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto
all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves
together unto Jerusalem; *And that whosoever would not come within
three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his
substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the
congregation of those that had been carried away*" (Ezra 10:3-8,
emphases
added).
Where in the judicial law do we find civil penalties which state that if one
did not attend this particular covenant renewal "within three
days" that
the civil magistrate could relieve him of all his "substance," and
separate
(exile) him from the covenanted people of God? If no such negative civil
sanction can be expressly found in God's Word, then Wilson's view of
penology stands overturned. Clearly we need to look beyond his truncated
view for guidance on such contemporary questions as how the civil
magistrate should deal with the pornography plague.
Though the preceding Scriptural and historical examples provide more
than ample refutation of Wilson's hyper-regulativism as applied to
negative civil sanctions, we consider briefly one final, devastating
account.
Nehemiah, a civil reformer par excellence, exemplifies God's ordinance of
civil magistracy as a "nursing-father" (Isa. 49:23) to the church
of Christ:
"In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the
sabbath,
and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs,
and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the
sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold
victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all
manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in
Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them,
What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not
your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon
this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath.
And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark
before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and
charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of
my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in
on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged
without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said
unto them, Why **lodge ye** about the wall? **if ye do so again, I will lay
hands on you**. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath"
(Neh. 13:15-21, emphases added).
Note carefully that in his treatment of those who just gave "the
appearance
of evil," by waiting outside the gate for the Sabbath to end, Nehemiah
threatens to apply negative civil sanctions ("I will lay hands on
you")
*before* any actual *explicit* Sabbath violation (i.e. buying and selling,
etc.) occurs. Is there an explicit judicial law requiring the magistrate to
punish those who look as if they are about to break the Sabbath? Or were
Nehemiah's civil threats a logical inference deduced by good and necessary
consequence from the fourth commandment and the Scriptural duty of the
civil magistrate?
But further -- and this observation once-and-for-all nullifies Wilson's
civil
hyper-regulativism -- consider the nature of the offense for which
Nehemiah was to punish these merchants who were camping outside of the
city. It is apparent from the context that Nehemiah was seeking to keep
the inhabitants of Judah, and especially Jerusalem, from desecrating the
Sabbath by merchandising. He does not wait until the actual infraction
occurs to threaten punishment, nor does he promise those lodging outside
the city that they will be punished *if they break the Sabbath by buying
and selling the following day*. Rather, he assures them that if they even
***tempt*** his constituents to break the Sabbath ***he will "lay hands
on"
them***. Matthew Poole concisely concurs: "For this was a *temptation*
to
covetous or needy Jews, that lived in or near the city, to steal
opportunities
of buying their commodities, which then they might do with more
advantage" (emphasis added). And thus we have righteous Nehemiah's
example standing as an eternal and irrefutable testimony against the
teaching of Wilson and a number of *modern* Theonomists, for what is
pornography but ***a temptation to violate the seventh commandment***?
As we have seen, at the root of this issue are two questions. First, Is
Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" to be applied to negative civil
sanctions?
And second, what is the place of logical consequences in determining upon
whom (and why) these sanctions should be applied? Samuel Rutherford,
one of the greatest biblical political philosophers ever to have lived (and
one of the Westminster Divines) answers both of these questions as we
have answered them (contra Wilson).
In arguing against the application of "hyper-regulativism" to
negative civil
sanctions, Rutherford writes,
"I see *nothing said against bodily punishing* [notice Rutherford does
not
say I see something 'said *for* bodily punishing,' as Wilson's view
requires--RB] of such as teach transubstantiation to others: for the
Idolaters and Seducers in the Old Testament believed the same way, there
is one true God 'Jehovah that brought them our of Egypt,' Exod 32.4,5.
Jereboam who made two Gods, and Jehu who was zealous for Jehovah, 1
King 13.6,c.13.1,2,3,. 2 King 9.25-36,37.c.10.16.20,21... [Rutherford here
adds many biblical examples concerning various idolaters, some who
claimed to worship Jehovah and some who did not, which we have
omitted--RB]" (_A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of
Conscience_ [1649], p. 71, emphases added).
He then states, on the question of logical consequences, that each of these
idolaters
"yet denyed and hated this *logicall consequence* that they had
'forsaken
the Lord,' Jer. (.13,14. or Deut 32.18. 'forgotten the rocke that begat
them',
Ps.78.11,41. Ps. 107.12,13. that 'they forsooke him dayes without
number'... and *they did error indeed in a consequence*, against the light
of nature, yet the irreligious and wicked stopping of eyes and eares at
*naturall consequences in matters of Religion is no innocent errour*, as is
cleare, Isa.44.18... yet *the Papist will deny this consequence*, that he
multiplyes Gods as loaves are multiplyed in an oven; because as Esaiah
saith, 'he knoweth not, he understandeth not, God hath shut his eyes';
certainly that knowledge he denyes to the Idolater, *is the natural
knowledge of a naturall consequence*; if ye worship a bit of a ash-tree, or
a bit of bread, ergo, the halfe of your God, or the quarter thereof, 'is
baken
in an oven', ergo, 'there is a lye, and an abomination in your right hand';
then **the deniall of logicall consequence in Religion, and the teaching
thereof to others, may be, and is an heresie, and punishable by the
Magistrate**, as Duet.13 and Exod. 32. So Christ rebukes Matth. 22 Saduces
as ignorant of the Scripture, when they denyed but the consequence or a
logicall connexion, as God is not the God of the dead but of the living,
ergo,
the dead must rise againe, and Abraham must live, and his body be raised
from the dead. And the Idolaters who were to dye by the Law of God,
Exod. 32. Deut.13. denyed not the true God more than our false teachers
doe now [who deny him in consequence--RB]. We see no reason why none
should be false teachers, but such only as deny fundamentals, and that
pertinaciously, though these by Divines be called Heretickes" (_A Free
Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ [1649], pp. 72-73,
emphases added).
Moreover, in accord with these principles, Rutherford writes,
"I say not for believing tran-substantiation only, men are to be
hanged; the
question now is of bodily punishing, hanging and burning quick, are
particular kinds of punishing, in which I should be as sparing as another
man, but the question may draw to this, whether the Laws of England &
Scotland be bloody and unjust, that ordains seminary Priests and Jesuits,
whose trade it is to seduce souls [soul murder--RB] to the whole body of
Popery, to bee hanged. I conceive *they are most just Lawes*, and
warranted by Deut. 13. [based on the good and necessary inference that
the enticing of the people to Romanism, and 'Romanism' is not mentioned
by the name 'Romanism' in Scripture, is the enticing of the people to 'go
and serve other Gods' Deut. 13:2,6,13--RB] and many other Scriptures, and
*that the King and Parliaments of either Kingdomes serve Christ, and Kisse
the Son in making and executing these Laws*" (_A Free Disputation
Against
Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ [1649], pp. 70-71, emphases added).
But you may say that "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"
[John 6:60].
The answer from the lips of our Lord: "My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them, and they follow me" [John 10:27].
Thus, we find that here, using different examples (idolatry,
transubstantiation and seduction to soul murder [as an occupation]),
Rutherford has summarized and refuted Wilson's view of negative civil
sanctions on the pornography question -- at a principial level. Rutherford
attacks the use of Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" and approbates
the use of
lawful ("good and necessary") inferences regarding negative penal
sanctions (for further study see the whole section "Errours in non-
fundamentalls obstinately spread, punishable," pages 64-77, in _A Free
Disputation..._ for extensive Scripture proofs on this point). On the two
most important points of principle related to the question of pornography
and criminal penalties Rutherford (the Westminster Divine) is
diametrically opposed to Doug Wilson the "classical Protestant."
And
Rutherford's view was not novel in his day, but rather the majority
position among the Reformers.
We agree with Rutherford (and Scripture), and thus proclaim that all
pornographers should come under negative civil sanctions (to a greater or
lesser degree depending on the level of offence) as a logical consequence of
their public violation of the law of God (and in light of the damage their
actions do to the promotion of godliness in society as a whole). This is the
"classical Protestant" position on the power of the civil
magistrate, in
opposition to the "freedom of choice," Anabaptistic,
Libertarianism
rampant among Christians today.
In our brief treatment we have noted a number of Scriptural and historical
examples squarely opposed to the civil "hyper-regulativism" which
Doug
Wilson promotes in _Credenda/Agenda_, and thus we must reject forever
this hermeneutic and its illegitimate, socially destructive offspring.
One of the tragic ironies of the *modern* Theonomy/Reconstructionist
movement is its (seemingly) paradoxical antinomianism. We say
"seemingly" because, as noted, their principles lead some of them
unembarrassedly to avow that the civil magistrate leave stumbling blocks
in the middle of the road (such a pornography) which ultimately encourage
its citizens -- especially the young and immature -- to break the seventh
commandment (and how many Christians compromise their testimony and
injure their soul by watching "off color" movies and television
programs or
listening to "adultery glorifying" music?, "But I say unto
you, That
whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart" Matt. 5:28). Such stumbling stones, if
they
were found in the middle of a busy highway (and caused car accidents)
would never be tolerated, yet we are told that the *greater dangers* posed
by *spiritual stumbling stones* are to be left alone civilly, until they are
removed by the "church, family, or the providence of God." Even a
civil
highway department couldn't be run on the bases of such principles, much
less a nation seeking to honor God. Could you image the traffic jam that
would occur on a busy mountain road, after a landslide (leaving massive
boulders on the highway), as people waited for the "church, family, or
the
providence of God" to clear the way? This is a graphic picture of the
problem caused by civil antinomianism and the antiestablishmentarianistic
views of civil government held by many Christians today -- and we have
many detouring off the road to Zion (practically speaking) and on to the
highway to hell, along with multiple car collisions in ruined Christian
testimonies, to prove it. Hordes are held captive to the lusts that readily
available pornography feeds, when civil governments are commanded by
Scripture (rightly understood) to have long ago brought out the graders
and rock crushing equipment and to have removed such impediments
from the road. And this is not to say that externals will produce salvation
or righteous behavior, but the older Reformed writers all recognized the
value of (civilly) limiting the public expression of sin in every legitimate
way possible. But this aspect of the Reformed understanding of Scripture
has been largely ignored or forgotten in our day.
Others have also noted this antinomian streak of which we speak (e.g.
Kevin Reed, _The Antinomian Streak in the Reconstructionist Movement_
free on the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/AntinomR.htm
),
particularly concerning offenses against the first four commandments (the
first table of the moral law). Every bit as tragic, however, have been their
opponents' insipid and equally antinomian criticisms. Indeed, we are
convinced that one of the greatest strengths of *modern* Theonomy is the
weakness and more blatant lawlessness (at least at a principial level) of
the majority of its critics.
Likewise lamentable has been Doug Wilson's insistence in claiming the
title, "Classical Protestant"; yet as we have briefly demonstrated
he is
simply rehashing antinomian *Anabaptistic* principles. Similarly, other
Theonomists have mustered the alleged support of the Westminster
Confession (and other products of the Reformation), when in reality their
principles fly directly in the face of the biblical truths championed by the
best of our reformed forefathers. We believe much of this
misrepresentation has arisen from ignorance, for many of the compositions
of our covenanted forebears have laid buried for centuries. However, by
the abundant grace and lovingkindness of God many of these works are
again being made available to the general public. Thus, while we do not
denounce everything these brethren have asserted (for who could not be
roused by the invigorating return to God's law that some of them have so
eloquently proclaimed?) we do call upon them to beware of willful
ignorance (2 Pet. 3:5), and to reject the cockiness exemplified in Wilson's
one-liner dismissals of the true "classical Protestantism" of the
Westminster Divines and other reformers (Rom. 12:3). We also admonish
them to consider a verse often appealed to in their writings:
"Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
We ourselves once zealously promoted many of the errors we now abhor
and testify against, so it is not a matter of who is superior: we are *all
desperately wicked*. We only ask that our brethren humble themselves
and admit their ignorance and errors, as we by God's grace have done, and
that in the meantime they do not rail against the truth they fail to
comprehend. May they also heed another sobering warning: "It is
impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom
they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these
little
ones" (Luke 17:1-2). Civil magistrates are to be the church's
"nursing-
fathers, and their queens [her] nursing-mothers" (Isaiah 49:23), not
the
protectors of her enemies.
A more extended treatment of this topic is well overdue, and perhaps this
essay will arouse such an edifying endeavor. In the meantime, we
encourage the reader *not* to be content with the evidence shown herein.
Rather, armed with an introduction to the true, *historical* theonomy held
by our reformed progenitors, and tasting of how their faithfulness to
Scripture would deliver us (as a body politic and as individuals) from
many of our society's temptations, let the reader obtain the *source
documents* of the Reformation for himself and enjoy a hearty spiritual
feast. In doing this he will certainly partake of Christ's wondrous gift to
the
church: "And he gave . . . *pastors and teachers*, for the perfecting of
the
saints, for the work of the *ministry*, for the edifying of the body of
Christ:
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son
of
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:11-14, emphases
added).
The following list presents some questions, aimed at the thoughtful reader,
which we believe will help demonstrate the absurdity of the modern
"Anabaptist" view of negative civil sanctions. When we speak of
civil
punishments, we do not have anything particular in mind, for the type and
severity of punishment are other issues which need to be addressed
separately. But, once civil coercion is allowed in a given instance, outside
of
an *explicit* negative civil sanction from God's Word (as in the biblical
and
historical examples we have cited above), Wilson's
"hyper-regulativism" as
applied to the state stands overthrown.
- Is the magistrate to punish a neighbor who inconsiderately and
obstinately plays his stereo (from his front porch) at 120 decibels (every
night of the week) from 3 to 5 A.M.? What if "Mr. Rock and Roll"
decides to
do the same thing outside of an old folks home? A hospital? A church
"meeting house" on the Lord's day (at 11 A.M.)?
- Should those in favor of abortion be allowed to speak publicly in favor of
their views, or to print pro-abortion literature, or make pro-abortion
videos and music? Should they be punished for seeking to win others to
their view?
- Should medical establishments be free from civil punishment for training
abortionists?
- Should the civil magistrate allow triple X videos to be intermingled in
the
children's section of the local video store? Should those who do such things
be liable to negative civil sanctions? What would you think of a father who
said that he doesn't agree that civil sanctions are lawful in such a case,
and
though he would boycott such a store *personally*, and have his church
pray against them, he would also defend (in his magazine?) the *civil
right* of the store owner to pervert others who do not find (in their
reprobate minds) such public perversion to be offensive to them or their
children? This is an interesting question, as *modern* Theonomists often
denounce those who focus on *only* individual (or family) piety, to the
exclusion of civil matters -- and yet some of them exempt pornographers
from criminal penalties (which in effect makes them less reconstructionists
than some of the pietists who understand by "the law of nature and
nations" [as the old divines would say] that public pornography should
be
suppressed by the civil magistrate).
- Should heroin, LSD, PCP, MDA, mescaline, peyote, pot, or other mind (and
spirit) altering drugs be legal and available at your local corner store?
Does
the Bible explicitly mandate any civil restrictions on the *age of buyers*
of
such poisons? Does the Bible explicitly mandate any civil restrictions on
the age of buyers of alcohol? Tobacco? Pornography?
- If a group of university students takes it upon themselves to block a
major interstate as some sort of protest (as happened a few years ago in
San Diego), should the magistrate use his coercive force to intervene, and
later punish these offenders in some way? Given Wilson's published
principles civilly defending pornographers, could there even be a law
making such behavior criminal?
- Can the police, as police (and not as private men) stop a crime at its
beginning, or even before it begins, or do they need to wait until it's been
committed to apply negative sanctions (even death to the criminal) against
the perpetrator (or would-be perpetrator)?
- Should terrorists be apprehended and proceeded against with sanctions
*before* they have detonated the bombs they are found to be
manufacturing? Which *explicit* biblical negative civil sanction deals with
bomb *making* (in and of itself)? Is there not much which a lawful civil
magistrate must determine, that is not explicitly stated in Scripture, in
order to rightly apply the *spirit of the law of God* in a case such as
this?
- Should a teacher (in a public, private or home school) be punished for
positively *promoting* (not just exposing) homosexuality, atheism,
communism, Romanism, Islam, occultism, or even bestiality in the
classroom? What about for providing recipes for home-made
hallucinogenics (as one of my high school teachers did many years ago)?
For teaching evolution as a fact?
- Should a drunk driver be punished by the civil magistrate before he
actually hurts anyone?
- Should those flagrantly violating traffic laws be punished, though they
may not yet have hurt anyone or damaged property? Should there even be
traffic laws (or other safety standards applied to vehicles)?
- Should those wearing flagrantly immodest clothing in public (e.g. bikinis)
be prevented from doing so by the magistrate, and punished if they persist
in this sin? Should those running naked in public ("streaking") be
subject
to civil sanctions?
- Should those making movies, songs or books promoting blatant error be
subject to civil sanctions?
- Should the civil government ever repress godless (and blasphemous) art
or music, and punish those producing and promoting such filth?
- Is the U.S. law mandating civil punishments for "conspiracy to
violate an
international treaty" biblically legitimate (apart from the question of
whether or not the US in a duly constituted nation)? Does this depend on
which treaty is being violated (i.e. whether it is lawful or unlawful to
begin
with)?
- Is it a crime in Scripture for one person to commit adultery, while, on
the
other hand, promoting, counselling and encouraging millions to do so (as
pornographers do) is free from civil punishment?
- Is the public toleration of pornography, Romanism, abortion, Islam,
homosexuality, idolatry, the occult, atheism, etc. (all parts of the complex
moral person of Antichrist) one of the causes of God's wrath upon our
nations? Should all publicly know national or provincial causes of God's
wrath be dealt with by the civil magistrate?
- Are patent laws legitimate?
- Should cigarette companies, who knowingly deceived the public about
the health hazards of smoking, be liable to civil penalties?
- Are there explicit penal sanctions revealed in Scripture (without the use
lawful inferences) regarding medical malpractice (which does not result in
death)? For example, if the undisputed negligence of a doctor causes a
person to become a paraplegic, is the negligent doctor free from civil
liability?
- Would it be a crime for a company to produce a food containing traces of
peanut extract, and not alert their customers as to this ingredient, if they
knew that severe allergic reactions would seriously harm a small portion
of those who consume this product? What *explicit* Scripture deals with
this from the civil standpoint? Do we again have to rely on necessary and
lawful inferences, based on Scripture, to determine this case?
- Should avowed Satanists be allowed to homeschool their children?
Unitarians? Romanists?
10. APPENDIX C: LARRY BIRGER'S LARGER AND SHORTER "LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR" OF _CREDENDA AGENDA_
September 13, 2010, 1996
Editor
Credenda/Agenda
P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, ID 83843
Dear Sir:
It
is with grieved indignation that I write you concerning your recent
piece (Vol. 8, No. 4) in "Cave of Adullam," concerning Reg Barrow,
president
of Still Waters Revival Books. Therein you state that Barrow "hasn't
read
Frame's new book on worship," and go on to lampoon him for the serious
charges he made about Frame on the "Knox-Ring" on-line forum. Your
title,
"Great Experiments In Telepathy," and commentary, imply great
carelessness on Barrow's part -- and really, even worse things than this.
In
your concluding barb, you state that, "we have not read all Barrow's
comments on Frame, and that which we did read was not read very
carefully." In saying this you indicted yourselves, for had you read
carefully, you would have noted what Barrow actually said (and not what
you slanderously reported): "From the quotes that I have seen here [on
Knox Ring] and elsewhere taken from Frame's new book. . . ." From his
actual statement it is clear that Barrow had read at least some of Frame,
and was appraised of his views concerning worship.
Barrow
has earned a well-deserved reputation for his zealous
promotion of the best historic reformed teaching available today. You
have sullied this reputation, presenting to your readership a gross
caricature of Barrow's character and scholastic aptitude. Thus, I call upon
you to repent of this violation of the ninth commandment, which forbids
"all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours. . .
[and]
giving false evidence" (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 145). Should
it
be asserted that Barrow was himself guilty of violating the ninth
commandment, inasmuch as he had not read all of Frame's book before
commenting that Calvin would have excommunicated Frame (and
therefore, that he made this serious charge recklessly), I obviate this by
noting two things. First, even if this were true, it is NOT what you
printed;
and if this was indeed the concern -- that Barrow was too hasty -- you
should have printed something to THAT effect: NOT that he had not read
ANY of Frame's book. Second, had you printed something to this effect
(instead of your libel), it would still be to no avail. Having read Frame's
book myself (and please, don't misrepresent me as well on this point), I
submit that anyone with a basic knowledge of the classical reformed
doctrine of worship would not need to read much more than the
introduction to conclude that Frame has deviated egregiously from this
position. A further skimming (let alone thorough reading) of the book
bears this out, indicating that Barrow's allegation about how Calvin would
have responded to Frame was right on target. One does not need to read
all of the Koran to condemn it, and neither are more than a few quotations
(and for the record, Barrow had considered far more than simply a few)
from Frame's recent work necessary to demonstrate that he has
abandoned, and is attacking, the very regulative principle he claims to
uphold -- at least if we're judging by the teaching and practice of the
Westminster divines who so clearly enunciated it, and who Frame
disingenuously claims as his theological fathers.
This
leads me, in conclusion, to comment briefly upon Doug Wilson's
review of Frame's book in the latest issue of C/A. I have noted Wilson's
apparent fondness (e.g. in his response to Kevin Reed, concerning
separation) of such terms as 'classical Protestant' and 'reformed
evangelical', and his readiness to apply them to himself and his positions.
However, Wilson, in criticizing the "strict regulativists" as he
does, shows
very clearly that he is not historically reformed in his doctrine of
worship.
Indeed, he has set himself squarely against such classical Protestants as
Calvin, Knox, Rutherfurd, Gillespie, Henderson, Baillie, the Westminster
Assembly, the entire church of Scotland at the time of that Assembly, and
John Owen, to name only a few. This does not automatically mean that he
is wrong (for history is only a hand-maid, and not a mistress, to borrow
from Anthony Burgess), but it does mean that in keeping with biblical
candor, C/A ought to inform its readers that Wilson (and any on staff who
agree with him) are not 'classical Protestants' in their doctrine of the
worship of God.
For the cause of God and truth,
Larry Birger, Jr.
LARRY BIRGER'S SHORTENED LETTER:
Dear Doug,
Here is the edited version of my earlier letter to the editor. Hopefully it
is
suitable now. I must say that it is virtually impossible to communicate
meaningfully and cogently any important idea in only 150 words. Such a
restriction, it seems to me, is well-suited to the sound byte format of your
magazine -- which I find very distasteful, and a hindrance to the
competent scholarship which alone can promote and defend the true faith
to the true edification of the saints. What was wrong with the _Antithesis_
format? It seemed much better suited to the ends of promoting 'classical
Protestantism'.
Please receive my criticism as a loving challenge from a concerned brother.
I am convinced that you are capable of far better than what you currently
publish, and I long to see you and the other writers use your talents to
best profit the scattered and confused church of Christ.
Yours in Christ,
Larry
------------------------------------------------------------
March 16, 1997
[Note: The following is a condensation of my previous letter concerning
Reg Barrow, which I was informed was too long for publication.]
Dear Sir:
Reg
Barrow's original piece said: "From the quotes that I have seen here
[on Knox Ring] and elsewhere taken from Frame's new book. . . ,"
clearly
indicating he had read **some** of Frame. One does not need to read all of
the Koran to condemn it publicly; likewise, a few quotes from Frame
readily show he has abandoned, and is attacking, the very regulative
principle he claims to uphold.
You
have sullied Barrow's reputation, presenting to your readership a
gross caricature of his character and scholastic aptitude; thereby violating
the ninth commandment, which forbids "all prejudicing the truth, and
the
good name of our neighbours. . . [and] giving false evidence"
(Westminster
Larger Catechism, Q. 145).
Finally,
your readers should note that Doug Wilson is not a'classical
Protestant' in his doctrine of worship. Indeed, he has set himself squarely
against such classical Protestants as Calvin, Knox, Rutherfurd, Gillespie,
Henderson, Baillie, the Westminster Assembly, the entire church of
Scotland at the time of that Assembly, and John Owen, to name only a few.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
Larry Birger, Jr.
11. APPENDIX D: THE TESTIMONY OF THE PURITAN REFORMED CHURCH OF
EDMONTON REGARDING THIS MATTER
From the minutes of the March 4 (1997) Session meeting of the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton:
OUR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE STAFF OF CREDENDA
AGENDA:
We note in our public record that Mr. Reg Barrow has faithfully addressed
and answered the scandalous article published in Vol. 8 No. 4 of _Credenda
Agenda_ magazine entitled "Great Experiments in Telepathy." We
note that
Doug Wilson, Doug Jones and Nathan Wilson have failed to repent of their
public violation of the ninth commandment and that Doug Wilson has
subsequently aggravated his sin by slandering the Puritan Reformed
Church of Edmonton, falsely and maliciously labelling us
"anabaptists" and
"separatists" in his written correspondence. Since these men are
outside
the jurisdiction of a lawful judicatory of Christ, we have no other recourse
than to publicly testify against their sinful obstinacy, by warning others
to
mark them and avoid them.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(Romans 16:17-16, KJV).
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and
not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6, KJV).
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to
godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and
strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,
supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy
6:3-5, KJV).
A record of the false accusations of the above mentioned men and the
answers that were returned to them can be found in the book entitled
_Saul in the Cave of Adullam_ published by Still Waters Revival Books. An
answer to their false charge of Anabaptism can be found in the book
entitled _A Testimony Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism_ by
Pastor Greg Price.
We will continue to pray that God will grant the above-named offenders
repentance, and bring us to a likemindedness in doctrine, worship and
government.
12. APPENDIX F: FOR FURTHER STUDY OF CLASSICAL PROTESTANTISM AND
THE ATTAINMENTS OF THE SECOND REFORMATION
The NEW REFORMATION BOOKSHELF CD series (30 CDs)
super sale is at:
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm
PURITAN
BOOKSHELF CD series (32 CDs)
super sale at:
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm
FREE
etext sermons and books (by
Calvin, Knox, Rutherford and other Covenanters) at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/newslett.htm
FREE
audio sermons and books (by
Calvin, Knox, Rutherford and other Covenanters) at:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/swrb
Much more on
Doug Wilson's continued backsliding (since the debate above) can be found at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/DWilson.htm
CASSETTES FOR FURTHER STUDY
PRICE, GREG
Each CASSETTE listed below sells for $2.55 (US funds) each,
unless marked otherwise.
Terms of Communion: Covenants and Covenanting ($17.85, 7
cassettes)
Explains and defends the fourth term of communion, which is "That
public, social covenanting is an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches
and nations under the New Testament; that the National Covenant and the
Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution; and that
these Deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person; and in
consistency with this, that the Renovation of these Covenants at
Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the word of God." Includes
the studies offered separately on the National Covenant (2 tapes), the
Solemn League and Covenant (1 tape), the Auchensaugh Renovation (2
tapes), as well as two introductory lectures (only available in this set) on
the biblical principles related to the ordinance of covenanting, the
descending obligation of lawful covenants, objections against covenanting,
etc. Roberts, in his Reformed Presbyterian Catechism ($8.99), catches
the spirit of this tape set in the following question and answer: "Q.
May we
not indulge the hope, that, in the goodness of our covenant God, and by the
promised outpouring of his Holy Spirit, 'the kingdoms of the world' at
large, and the British empire in particular, will dedicate themselves to God
in a covenant not to be forgotten - animated by the example of our
covenant fathers exhibited in these memorable deeds? A. Yes. We have the
most cheering grounds for this blessed hope; for it is written, that the
nations at large in the spirit of devoted loyalty, shall cry -- 'Come and
let
us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be
forgotten': and it cannot be well doubted, that the death-cry of the
martyred Guthrie has been heard on high, and shall be verified -- 'The
covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's (and the world's -- RB)
reviving'" (p. 151). A thoroughly amazing set of tapes -- among our
best!
Terms of Communion: The Martyrs and Historic Testimony ($4.99, 2
cassettes)
Explains and defends the fifth term of communion, which is "An
approbation of the faithful contendings of the martyrs of Jesus,
especially in Scotland, against Paganism, Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and
Sectarianism; immoral civil governments; Erastian tolerations and
persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial Testimony emitted
by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 (i.e. The Act,
Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted
Reformation--RB) with supplements
from the Reformed Presbyterian
Church; as containing a noble example to be followed, in contending for all
divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions embodied in the
constitutions of either churches or states." Price demonstrates how and
why uninspired historical testimony must be a term of communion. A
number of the same arguments apply to this question (of fencing the
Lord's table based on uninspired historical testimony), as apply to fencing
the table based on biblically accurate creeds and confessions -- so those
that understand biblical creedalism (and close communion) should have no
problem with this aspect of Reformation thought. Reformation views are
also differentiated from Romish views of history, church authority, etc., as
they come to bear on this point. At one of the most interesting points of
this study, Price also proves how one cannot even keep the inspired
commandments of God without the use of uninspired history (using the
fifth and ninth commandments as examples). History is here set on its
biblical foundations. Testimony is also well dealt with. Testimony is
defined as "That record which a witness gives (in a court) in defense
of the
truth and in opposition to error." Faithful biblical testimony is
shown, by
various examples from inspired and uninspired history, to bring the fury
of the enemy. This is where the Reformation theological rubber meets the
road of experimental Christianity and disinterested self-sacrifice (often
resulting in suffering and persecution as the antichristian beast
[ecclesiastical and civil] is stirred from his slumber by the barbs of
faithful
Christian witnesses as they testify to the truth and against "all
corruptions
embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states" -- thus the
long
list of Christian martyrs throughout history).
Terms of Communion: The Westminster Standards ($12.75, 5
cassettes)
Explains and defends the second term of communion, which is "That
the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the
Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable unto, and founded upon the
Scriptures." Price not only explains why we need creeds and confessions
(answering the question: Isn't the Scripture sufficient?), but he shows how
everyone has a creed and how such statements of faith are actually
inescapable -- for as soon as one says what he believes the Bible means,
has has (be definition) put forth his creed ("credo" in Latin
means "to
believe"). There is no neutrality! He also gives a summary of the
Westminster standards and the history of this august assembly,
demonstrating why these standards are agreeable to the word of God.
After showing how faithful creeds and confessions (i.e. human testimony)
have brought untold blessings to the church he gives a history of the
Westminster Assembly (setting the context for the study of the Standards
themselves). The doctrines contained in the confessional standards are
then summarized. Price also exposes and rebukes much false teaching and
false practice (contrary to the standards) using the specific names
associated with each heresy refuted. The following doctrines are covered:
sola Scripture (refuting popery, neo-orthodoxy, liberalism and the
charismatics), the doctrine of God (refuting Unitarianism, Oneness theology
[Modalism, Sabellianism], and tritheism), God's decrees and predestination
(refuting Arminianism, fatalism [Islam]), creation (refuting Evolutionism,
Pantheism and New Age and Eastern mysticism), the covenant of works,
Providence (against "luck" and "accidents"), the fall of
man (refuting
Arminianism and Pelagianism), the covenant of grace (refuting
dispensationalism), Christ our mediator (refuting Arianism [JW's],
Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism [which led to the
transubstantiation and consubstantiation heresies], the free offer of the
gospel, effectual calling (contra Arminianism), justification by faith alone
through Christ alone (contra Rome and the Arminians), sanctification and
good works (condemning antinomianism and legalism), assurance of faith,
perseverance of the saints, the law of God, Christian liberty (against
pretended liberty of conscience and the imposition of legalistic standards
outside of the law of God), worship (against the anti-regulativists and
promoters of will-worship), the regulative principle (condemning
Arminianism in worship), the Sabbath (taking the high Scottish view),
lawful oaths and vows (condemning covenant breaking [churches and
nations included], perjury, etc.), the civil magistrate (against pluralism,
false toleration, Erastianism, and for biblical establishments), marriage,
the
church (contra popery, prelacy and independency [all of which are forms
of sectarianism]), and the resurrection and general judgement.
Terms of Communion: Presbyterian Worship and Government ($4.95, 2
cassettes)
Explains and defends the third term of communion, which is "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."
"To many readers, the subject of church government will not seem
terribly
exciting. Judging from the lack of contemporary literature on the topic, one
might conclude that church polity is not very important. Yet, if the truth
were known, many of the practical problems facing the church are the
result of an abandonment of scriptural church polity. The church is not a
mere social club. The church is the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13), subject
to
his rule. In the Bible, the Lord has established an ecclesiastical
government
by which his people are to be ruled. Just as Christ has instituted civil
government to ensure civil order, so he has established ecclesiastical
government to preserve order in the church (1 Cor. 14:33). A man is not
free to dispense with the church's government anymore than he is at
liberty to disregard the (lawful--RB) civil authorities. We do not contend
that the divine order for church government extends to every detail.
Obviously, the Lord did not mandate how many times the elders of the
church must meet each month; nor did he prescribe any particular attire
for them to wear while performing their official duties. Such incidentals
are adapted to the needs and exigencies of the time and place; according to
the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.
Nevertheless, the scriptures do provide an overall plan of government
which the church must follow if she is to remain faithful to her Lord.
Therefore, it is important to examine biblical principles of church
polity,"
writes Kevin Reed in his Biblical Church Government. Much the same
could be said regarding worship. These tapes are an excellent introductory
explanation of the fundamentals of Divine Right Presbyterian church
government and Divine Right Presbyterian worship. They are jam-packed
with Scripture, history and sound reasoning and should be very helpful to
all those seeking the Lord's will concerning these two important subjects.
Price distinguishes between the elements and circumstances of worship
(contra John Frame's heretical innovations, wherein he rejects these
distinctions), while the vital issues of unity and uniformity, separation
from false worship and false man-made church governments are not
forgotten. All this is set in the context of faithfully approaching the
Lord's
table. "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things,
and
keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Terms of Communion: The Practice of Truth ($2.55, cassette)
Explains and defends the sixth term of communion, which is
"Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Savior by walking in all
His commandments and ordinances blamelessly."
Many of Greg Price's cassettes are available at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/p.htm
Also see the free samples online at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/swrb
BOOKS
FOR FURTHER STUDY
PURITAN REFORMED SESSION
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 follow 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. One example given by the
Puritan Reformed elders exhibits Rutherford's (and the other Protesters)
stand regarding covenanting, close communion and separation,
In fact, the issue of faithfulness to the covenants
actually
rent the Church of Scotland into two parties so
that the Protesters declared
the Assemblies of the Resolutioners (the
covenant-breaking party that
developed out of the Engagers) to be
unconstitutional and pretended
Assemblies. The covenants were obvious terms of
communion, for
Protesters and Resolutioners refused to meet in the
same General
Assemblies together. Protesters did not recognize
the unlawful courts of
the Resolutioner Assemblies and would not attend
them when cited to
appear. Protesters were deposed from the ministry
by Resolutioner
Assemblies when they refused to recognize their
lawful authority to rule
on behalf of Christ.
It [the joint General Assembly of Protesters and
Resolutioners--PRC] met in St. Andrews on 16th
July. . . . Rutherford, and other
twenty-one sympathisers, protested against the
meeting as unconstitutional. . . .
There [later at Dundee, where the General Assembly
of Protesters, who had
separated themselves from the Resolutioners, was
now meeting--PRC], on 22nd
July [1651--PRC], Rutherford's cogent Protest
declining the Assembly was read.
Balcarres [a Resolutioner--PRC] in vain demanded
that the twenty-two absent Protesters
should be reported for civil punishment for their
reflections on the
King, Parliament, and Church. The Assembly [of
Resolutioners--PRC]
ordered Presbyteries to deal with them. It was
ultimately
agreed to cite [James--PRC] Guthrie, Patrick
Gillespie, James Simson, James
Naismith, and John Menzies. They did not compear
[i.e.
appear at the Resolutioner assembly--PRC]. The
[Resolutioner--PRC]
Assembly deposed Guthrie, Gillespie, and Simson,
suspended
Naismith, and referred Menzies to the Commission.
After the meeting of the Assembly at St. Andrews,
a work was
published entitled A Vindication of the Freedom
and
Lawfulness of the late Assembly [by James Wood, a Resolutioner--PRC],
etc.
This was answered by The Nullity of the
Pretended
Assembly at Saint Andrews and Dundee [signed by 40 Protesters
including Rutherford and Guthrie--PRC](Hewison, The
Covenanters,
Vol. II, pp. 34,35, emphases added).
Separate Assemblies of Protesters and Resolutioners
met in 1652 and in
1653 in Edinburgh. The Protesters declared the
Assembly of the
Resolutioners in 1652 to be "unlawful, unfrie,
and unjust" (Hewison, The
Covenanters,
Vol. II, p. 43). It is worthy to be noted that the issue
between the Protesters and the Resolutioners did
not deal at all with the
propriety of ministers and members of the Church of
Scotland swearing
the covenants, but over the issue of faithfulness
to the covenants. Both
sides upheld the obligation of ministers and
members to own the
covenants. Furthermore, unfaithfulness to this term
of communion (i.e.
faithfully maintaining the covenants) on the part
of the Resolutioners led
the Protesters to separate from their brethren to
avoid schism and in order
to maintain a truly constituted church. They would
not serve with the
Resolutioners while they maintained different terms
of communion,
neither would they serve them the Lord's Supper
(e.g. Rutherford refused
to serve communion with Blair at St. Andrews; and
on another occasion
Rutherford and Moncrieff debarred Resolutioners
from the table at
Scoonie). Such actions can only be defended if the
covenants were terms
of communion. Were the covenants biblical terms of
communion? We
testify that they were and still are biblical terms
of communion. To affirm
otherwise is in effect to charge the faithful
covenanters (Protesters) of the
Second Reformation with sin and to undermine their
covenanted
reformation and the biblical presbyterianism they
taught and practiced.
The following excerpt gives a short synopsis of those truths which this
book seeks to vindicate. The elders of The Puritan Reformed Church write:
"Though it is not necessary that a truly
constituted church
be absolutely pure as to the doctrine taught or
embraced, as to the
ordinances administered, or the public worship
performed, it is, however,
necessary that its constitution be founded upon and
agreeable to the Word
of God and that its constitution reflect the light
attained to by the purest of
Reformed Churches (for all reformation must be
biblical reformation if it is
reformation at all, otherwise it is not a
reformation but a deformation, cf.
Phil. 3:16). Wherefore, to adopt a constitution
that corrupts the light of
Scripture or the light of reformation is to adopt a
false constitution. A false
constitution renders a church and its courts
unconstitutional. When the
Confession of Faith (25:4) speaks of degrees of
purity among particular
churches within the "catholick church",
we believe it designates degrees of
purity within truly constituted churches. For
example, though the church
of Corinth was plagued with division, immorality,
and false doctrine
promoted by some within the church (and therefore
manifested a lesser
degree of purity than other truly constituted
churches, cf. the church of
Smyrna in Rev. 2:8-11), it was, nevertheless, a
truly constituted church for
it was constituted by apostolic authority (with
apostolic doctrine, apostolic
worship, apostolic government, and apostolic
discipline). Thus, for a
church to constitutionally adhere to Arminianism,
Dispensationalism, or
Charismatic experientialism (false doctrine),
singing uninspired hymns or
using instrumental music in public praise (false
worship), Episcopacy or
Independency (false government), or unrestricted
communion (false
discipline) is to qualify as a constitutionally
false church. That is not to say
that there are no believers in churches that are
not truly constituted (there
may be many in some cases). Nor is it to imply that
ministers or elders
within those churches do not courageously stand for
many truths taught in
Scripture. It is simply to say that authority to
rule in the church must
come from Christ, and if a church does not have a
constitution of which He
approves (as King of His church), then there is no
lawful authority to rule
or to administer the ordinances on His
behalf."
This book is the best short introduction to questions regarding the
visible church and separation which we list.
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/p.htm
SYMINGTON, ANDREW, editor
Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation (1841)
Written by ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, this
book contains the following chapters: "Introductory Lecture on the
Principles of the Second Reformation" by Andrew Symington; "The
Headship of Christ Over His Church and Her Independent Jurisdiction" by
James Ferguson; "Evils, Constitutional and Practical, of the Prelactic
Establishment of the British Empire" by Thomas Nelson; "The
Revolution
Settlement of the Church of Scotland: Its Provisions, in several Respects,
Inconsistent with the Approved Principles of the Second Reformation" by
John Graham; "Patronage Opposed to the Independence of the Church, and
to the Scriptural Rights of the Christian People" by W.H. Goold;
"Headship of
Christ Over the Nations" by Andrew Symington; "Nature and
Obligation of
Public Vows; with an Explanation and Defence of the British Covenants"
by
William Symington; "The Sin and Danger of Union Between the Church of
Christ and an Immoral or Antichristian Civil Government" by Stewart
Bates; and "The Evil of Relaxed Discipline in the Church" by John
Milwan.
472 pages, each chapter can also be purchased separately, except the
preface.
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/s.htm
SHIELDS, ALEXANDER
A Hind Let Loose; or An Historical Representation of the Testimonies
of
the Church of Scotland for the Interest of Christ with the True State
thereof
in all its Periods. Together with a Vindication of the Present
Testimony
Against Popish, Prelatical, and Malignant Enemies of that Church, as
it is
now Stated, for the Prerogatives of Christ, Privileges of the Church,
and
Liberties of Mankind; and Sealed by the Sufferings of a Reproached
Remnant of Presbyterians there, Witnessing Against the Corruptions of
the
Time: Wherein Several Controversies of Greatest Consequence are
Enquired
into, and in Some Measure Cleared; Concerning Hearing of the Curates,
Owning of the Present Tyranny, Taking of Ensnaring Oaths and Bonds,
Frequenting of Field-Meetings, Defensive Resistance of Tyrannical
Violence,
with Several Other Subordinate Questions Useful for these Times (1687,
1797 edition)
First printed in 1687 (near the end of the "killing times"), we
have used
the 1797 edition for this rare bound photocopy because all of the Latin has
been translated into English (an obvious improvement for English readers).
This rare Covenanter classic, concerning Calvinistic political philosophy
and
tactics of civil resistance, is comparable to Samuel Rutherford's Lex, Rex;
in
fact it could rightly be referred to as "Lex Rex volume two." It
is solidly in
the line of John Knox's teachings on civil disobedience and addresses
numerous topics that are relevant to today's Christian. "In A Hind Let
Loose, Shields justified the Camerionian resistance to royal absolutism and
the divine right of kings. He argued that government is divinely ordained,
but the people are entitled to bring a king to judgement for wrongdoing.
Parliament is commissioned by the people to oversee the nation's affairs,
but the compact between the people and their rulers does not entail a
forfeiture of the people's power to depose tyrants and confer authority on
someone else. Government is by consent, and must justify itself to the
consciences of the people. God has given men the right of self defence, and
this extends to a a right not only passively to resist, but also to kill
relentless persecutors" writes Isbell (in the Dictionary of Scottish
Church
History and Theology, p. 773). Controversial chapter titles include:
"Concerning Owning of Tyrants Authority;" "Defensive Arms
Vindicated;"
"Of Extraordinary Execution of Judgement by Private Men;" and
"Refusing
to Pay Wicked Taxation Vindicated." This book sets forth the Crown
rights of King Jesus, against all usurpers in both church and state, giving
a
history of some of faithful sufferings endured by the elect, in maintaining
this truth. It bears testimony against "the popish, prelatical and malignant
enemies' of Christ and proclaims the only true basis of liberty for
mankind. "The matter is argued with a vast abundance of Biblical
illustration, and with much reference to Reformation and Puritan divines.
It should be consulted, if practicable, by all who wish fully to understand
the inner spirit of the Covenanting Movement," writes Purves in Fair
Sunshine (p. 202). Isbell
interestingly notes that Shields was once
"amanuensis to the English Puritan John Owen." Over 750 pages,
this very
rare item sells for from $250-$800 on the rare book market. Now you can
have it for much less!
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/s.htm
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. Write
for a sample of this highly
recommended publication at: P.O. Box 131, Pottstown, PA, 19464, USA).
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.
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/r.htm
REFORMED PRESBYTERY
Auchensaugh Renovation of the National Covenant and Solemn League
and Covenant; with the Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to
Duties as they were Renewed at Auchensaugh in 1712... Also the
Renovation of These Public Federal Deeds Ordained at Philadelphia,
Oct. 8,
1880, By the Reformed Presbytery, With Accommodation of the Original
Covenants, in Both Transactions, to their Times and Positions
Respectively
(1880 ed.)
"In 1712, at Auchensaugh, the Covenants, National and Solemn League,
were renewed... At the renewal the covenant bonds were recognized as
binding the descendants of those who first entered into those bonds. The
Covenanters, however, sought to display the true intent of those Covenants
with marginal notes. These notes explained that the Church of Jesus Christ,
in Scotland (and around the world), must not join hands with any political
power in rebellion to the crown rights of King Jesus. The Covenanters
pledged the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church to the support of
lawful magistracy (i.e. magistracy which conformed itself to the precepts of
God's Word) and declared themselves and their posterity against support
of any power, in Church or State, which lacked biblical authority."
(From
"About the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church" P.O. Box 131,
Pottstown, PA 19464). An excellent introduction (historical and moral)
regarding the reasons, motives and manner of fulfilling the duty of
covenanting with God. Especially helpful concerning the Biblical view of the
blessings (for covenant-keepers) and cursings (for covenant breakers)
related to covenanting. As noted on page 37, "the godly usually in
times of
great defection from the purity and power of religion, and corruption of
the ordinances of God's worship, set about renewing their covenant,
thereby to prevent covenant curses, and procure covenant blessing; as we
find both in scripture record, 2 Chron. 15:12-13; 29:10; 34:30-31; Ezra
10:3, and in our own ecclesiastical history." Times like ours certainly
call
for a revival of the Scriptural ordinance of covenanting, for "[t]he
nations
throughout Christendom, continue in league with Antichrist and give their
strength to the beast. They still refuse to profess and defend the true
religion in doctrine, worship, government and discipline, contrary to the
example of the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland in the
seventeenth century" (p. 136 in this book).
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/r.htm
REFORMED PRESBYTERY
A Short Vindication of our Covenanted Reformation (1879)
Until the church comes to terms with what is written in this book it will
remain weak and divided. Covenant breakers will not prosper, as this rare
item demonstrates from both Scripture and history. The power packed
ordinance of covenanting, (the National and Solemn League and Covenant
in particular), was foundational to the second Reformation and the work of
the Westminster Assembly. "By the National Covenant our fathers laid
Popery prostrate. By the Solemn League and Covenant they were
successful in resisting prelatic encroachments and civil tyranny. By it they
were enabled to achieve the Second Reformation... They were setting up
landmarks by which the location and limits of the city of God will be
known at the dawn of the millennial day... How can they be said to go forth
by the footsteps of the flock, who have declined from the attainments,
renounced the covenants and contradicted the testimony of 'the cloud of
witnesses."...All the schisms (separations) that disfigure the body
mystical
of Christ... are the legitimate consequences of the abandonment of
reformation attainments, the violation of covenant engagements." If you
are interested in knowing how to recognize a faithful church (or state),
when and why to separate from unfaithful institutions, who has held up
the standard of covenanted Reformation attainments and who has
backslidden (and why), what it means to subscribe to the Westminster
Confession (and why most that say they do so today do not have any idea
of what that means), and much more concerning individual, family, church
and civil duties, this is one of the best books you will ever lay your hands
on. It chronicles "some instances of worldly conformity and mark(s)
some
steps of defection from our 'covenanted unity and uniformity,' " noting
how "it is necessary to take a retrospect of our history for many
years; for
we did not all at once reach our present condition of sinful ignorance and
manifold apostasy." Presbyterian and the Reformed churches lay under
the
heavy hand of God's judgement in our day, because of the very defections
noted throughout this fine work. "We heard (hear) from various quarters
the cry, 'maintain the truth, stand up for the principles of the Second
Reformation;' and yet many of those who are the most loud in uttering this
cry, appear desirous to bury in oblivion those imperishable national and
ecclesiastical deeds, by which the church and kingdom of Scotland became
'married to the Lord.'" Are we married to the Lord, or have we thrown
off
the covenants of our forefathers; are we the chaste bride of Christ, or a
harlot who is found in the bedchambers of every devilish suitor (whether
ecclesiastical or civil) who tempts us with the favors of this world? Let us
cry out, as with "the noble Marquis of Argyle, upon the scaffold,"
when he
said, "God hath tied us by covenants to religion and reformation. These
that
were then unborn are yet engaged, and it passeth the power of all the
magistrates under heaven to absolve them from the oath of God. They
deceive themselves, and it may be, would deceive others, who think
otherwise." Not for the weak of heart.
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/r.htm
ROBERTS, WILLIAM L.
The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism (1853)
A manual of instruction, drawing from such notable authors as William
Symington and J.R. Willson, presenting "arguments and facts confirming
and illustrating the 'Distinctive Principles'" of the Reformed
Presbyterian
Church. Chapters deal with: "Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in
general;"
Christ's exclusive Headship over the Church;" "The Supreme and
Ultimate
Authority of the Word of God in the Church;" Civil Government, the
Moral
Ordinance of God;" Christ's Headship over the Nations;" "The
Subjection of
the Nations to God and to Christ;" The Word, or Revealed Will of God,
the
Supreme Law in the State;" "The Duty of Nations, in their National
Capacity,
to acknowledge and support the True Religion:" "The Spiritual
Independence of the Church of Christ:" "The Right and Duty of
Dissent from
an immoral Constitution of Civil Government;" "The Duty of
Covenanting,
and the Permanent Obligations of Religious Covenants;" "The
Application of
these Principles to the Governments, where Reformed Presbyterians
reside, in the form of a Practical Testimony;" and finally
"Application of the
Testimony to the British Empire." A most important book, as we approach
(possibly) the end of the great apostasy and will be in need of preparing
for the dawning of the glorious millennial blessings to come; the days
prophesied in which the church "shalt also suck the milk of the
Gentiles,
and shalt suck the breast of kings" (Isa. 60:16).
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/r.htm
RUTHERFORD, SAMUEL
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience (1649
edition.)
Rutherford's Free Disputation, though
scarce, is still one of his most
important works – with maybe only a few copies of the actual book left in
existence. Though Rutherford is affectionately remembered in our day for
his Letters, or for laying the
foundations of constitutional
government (against the divine right of kings) in his unsurpassed Lex
Rex, his Free Disputation should not be overlooked – for it
contains the same searing insights as Lex Rex. In fact, this book
should probably be known as Rutherford's "politically incorrect"
companion volume to Lex Rex. A sort
of sequel aimed at driving
pluralists and antinomians insane. Written against "the Belgick
Arminians,
Socinians, and other Authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious
Tolerations of Sects and Heresies," Rutherford explains the undiluted
Biblical solution to moral relativism, especially as it is expressed in
ecclesiastical and civil pluralism! (Corporate pluralism being a violation
of
the first commandment and an affront to the holy God of Scripture). He
also deals with conscience, toleration, penology (punishment), and the
judicial laws, as related to both the civil and ecclesiastical realms.
Excellent
sections are also included which address questions related to determining
the fundamentals of religion, how covenants bind us, the perpetual
obligation of social covenants (with direct application to the Solemn League
and Covenant and the covenant-breaking of Cromwell and his sectarian
supporters), whether the punishing of seducing teachers be persecution of
conscience, and much more. Walker adds these comments and context
regarding Rutherford's Free Disputation,
"The principle of toleration
was beginning to be broached in England, and in a modified shape to find
acceptance there. Samuel Rutherford was alarmed, or rather, I should say,
he was horrified, for he neither feared the face of man or argument. He
rushed to the rescue of the good old view... It is not so easy to find a
theoretical ground for toleration; and Rutherford has many plausible things
to say against it. With the most perfect confidence, he argues that it is
alike
against Scripture and common sense that you should have two religions
side by side. It is outrageous ecclesiastically, it is sinful civilly. He
does not,
however, take what I call the essentially persecuting ground. He does not
hold that the magistrate is to punish religion as religion. Nay, he strongly
maintains that the civil magistrate never aims at the conscience. The
magistrate, he urges, does not send anyone, whether a heretic (who is a
soul murderer--RB) or a murderer, to the scaffold with the idea of
producing conversion or other spiritual result, but to strengthen the
foundations of civil order. But if he gives so much power to the king, he is
no lover of despotism withal: the king himself must be under law. To
vindicate this great doctrine is the object of another book, the celebrated
Lex Rex; of which it has been said by
one competent to judge, that it
first clearly developed the constitutionalism which all men now accept"
(Theology and Theologians..., pp.
11-12). In our day Francis
Schaeffer, and numerous others, have critiqued many of the problems
found in modern society, but most have spent little time developing
explicitly Biblical solutions – especially regarding the theoretical
foundations that Rutherford addresses here. Rutherford's Free
Disputation provides a detailed
blueprint for laying the foundations
that must be laid before any lasting, God-honoring solutions will be found.
Furthermore, Rutherford and his writings were the enemies of all
governments not covenanted with Christ. This book will give you a very
clear picture as to why "the beast" (civil and ecclesiastical) has
reserved
his special hatred for such teaching. As Samuel Wylie noted "[t]he
dispute,
then, will not turn upon the point whether religion should be civilly
established... but it is concerning what religion ought to be civilly
established and protected, -- whether the religion of Jesus alone should be
countenanced by civil authority, or every blasphemous, heretical, and
idolatrous abomination which the subtle malignity of the old serpent and a
heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, can frame and
devise, should be put on an equal footing therewith" (Two Sons of
Oil: or,
The Faithful Witness For Magistracy and Ministry Upon a Scriptural
Basis, softcover). Can our generation
swallow Rutherford's hard, anti-
pluralistic, Covenanter medicine, poured forth from the bottle of the first
commandment, without choking on their carnal dreams of a free and
righteous society divorced from God (and His absolute claims upon
everyone and everything)? Not without the enabling power of the Holy
Spirit -- that is for sure! In summary, this book answers all the hardest
questions theonomists (and their wisest and best opponents) have been
asking for the last 20-30 years (and these answers are much more in
depth than any we have seen in the last couple of millennia [less about a
century to account for the apostles]). As the reader will discover,
Rutherford was a wealthy man when it came to wisdom (and much
advanced theologically), and those who take the time to gaze into the
King's treasure house, as exhibited in this book, will find that they are
greatly rewarded. Furthermore, because of its uncompromising stand upon
the Word of God, this book is sure to be unpopular among a wicked and
adulterous generation. However, on the other hand, it is sure to be popular
among the covenanted servants of King Jesus! This is one of the best books
(in the top five anyway) for advanced study of the Christian faith. We have
now obtained an easy-to-read, amazingly clear copy of this very rare, old
treasure. Great price too, considering that a copy of the 1649 edition,
containing this quality of print, would likely cost upwards of $1000 on the
rare book market -- though it is unlikely you would ever see a copy for
sale!
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/r.htm
ANDERSON, JOHN
Alexander and Rufus; or a Series of Dialogues on Church Communion, in
Two Parts. Part 1: Vindication of Scriptural Church Communion in
Opposition to Latitudinarian Schemes. Part 2: Defence of the Communion
Maintained in the Secession Church. (1862)
Anderson does an excellent job concerning: Calvin's plan for promoting a
union among the churches (p. 151ff.); the place of confessions and
confessional subscription (pp. 85, 179); covenanting (pp. 358-384);
separation (pp. 92, 132); worship (pp. 10-13, 87, 107, 142, 155, 161-164,
456ff., etc.); the marks of the church (p. 132ff.); uniformity (pp. 7, 103,
168, 205); the Westminster Assembly (p. 169ff); the Dutch views (p. 158f.);
distinctions between essentials and non-essentials (p. 168); the so-called
"glorious revolution" of 1688 (p. 263); the French Reformed
churches (p.
156); the covenanted Reformation (p. 253); discipline (p. 103); attainments
(pp. 11, 93, 137, 162ff., 206, etc.); the government of the church (p. 123);
the so-called "Apostle's creed" (pp. 100-104); the Belgic
Confession (pp.
135-138); councils in the ancient church (p. 104); the Donatists (p. 112);
the forsaking of sin, false doctrine, and false teachers (pp. 92, 132);
occasional hearing (p. 83); Owen against open communion (p. 207);
sectarianism (p. 92); and much, much more. On the topic of church and
sacramental communion you are unlikely to find many other books with as
much solid information. Recommended for advanced study. Indexed,
518 pages.
Available at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/a.htm
Still Waters Revival Books
(Reformation resources at great
discounts!)
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5
E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
(780) 450-3730
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/
(MANY FREE BOOKS on the home page!)