Back to swrb home page

The following article, A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE UNFOUNDED CHARGES OF ANABAPTISM, is appendix A excerpted from Saul in the Cave of Adullam: A Testimony Against the Fashionable Sub- Calvinism of Doug Wilson (Editor of Credenda/Agenda Magazine); and, for Classical Protestantism and the Attainments of the Second Reformation by Reg Barrow
Doug Wilson and others at Credenda/Agenda used their magazine to publicly attack and slander Reg Barrow (President of Still Waters Revival Books) in a column that they call the "Cave of Adullam." This invective was Credenda's response to Barrow’s comments on Knox Ring (where Barrow noted that John Calvin would have excommunicated John Frame for the apostasy that he manifests in his new book on worship). Numerous private attempts were unsuccessfully made (by Barrow and others) to call Wilson to repentance for this slander. Ultimately, charges for violation of the ninth commandment were brought (in accord with Matt. 18:15-17) against Wilson by Barrow. This book recounts the salient points of the controversy (and the Matthew 18 proceedings) between Wilson and Barrow -- in their actual email debates! Also included is Barrow's demonstration of why Calvin would have excommunicated Frame and Greg Price's Testimony Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism. These debates are a classic example of the differences that exist today between paleopresbyterians (Barrow) and neopresbyterians (Wilson). Wilson's charges against Barrow, of Anabaptism, separatism, etc. are all refuted under a mountain of quotations from Reformation source documents. Barrow's refutations of Wilson's spurious charges bring to light many aspects of Reformation thought that have been lost or forgotten in our day. Besides the initial controversy (over Frame and worship) and the restoration process (set forth in Matthew 18:15-17), this book should be of special interest to all of those who love the "old paths" of truth -- trod by our forefathers in the Reformed faith -- for some of the most pressing issues of our day (regarding the individual, church and state) are addressed herein. Classic statements, cited by Barrow, not only exhibit the wisdom which God granted the best Reformers of both the first and second Reformations, but also specifically demonstrate how Wilson and many other modern Protestants actually reject the Reformation at many points (all their protests not withstanding). "And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in" (Isa. 58:12). This item is also available as a bound photocopy for $7.98 (US funds) and a Hardcover photocopy for $19.00 (US funds).

Also of interest may be appendix B from Saul in the Cave... Pornography, the Anabaptists, and Doug Wilson's Civil Antinomianism (1997) by Reg Barrow
Pointed but irenic, Barrow decisively refutes the view of Doug Wilson (cf. "Cyberporn: A Case Study" [Credenda/Agenda, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 11]), many modern Theonomists and the civil libertarians, that the production and distribution of pornography is not a crime (and thus not subject to negative penal sanctions by the civil magistrate). Barrow demonstrates that Wilson's view of civil government (which logically results in such a monstrous conclusion) is actually a overly strict view of the regulative principle. This "hyper-regulativism" (denying lawful inferences, or what Samuel Rutherford calls "logical consequence") is then wrongly applied to the civil magistrate, rather than to worship (when rightly interpreted). He also points out the link between Wilson's view and the principles of the Anabaptists, Libertines and other antiestablishmentarian forces. With an impressive array of historical citations (primarily John Calvin, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and the Westminster Confession of Faith), and a cogent analysis and application of relevant Scripture passages, Barrow shows clearly that Wilson's view of civil government "gives birth to illegitimate offspring in the case of pornography, contradicting as it does common sense (the light of nature), our reformed fathers in the faith, and the express commands and approved examples of Scripture. In short, it is anything but the 'classical Protestant' position, and anything but biblical." Expressing his belief that many hold to this erroneous notion of the magistrate out of ignorance, he concludes his essay with a heartfelt call to his modern Theonomic brethren (and others) to study the reformation source documents now available (and adopt the historic Theonomy of the Reformation). He also provides a brief list of questions that readily manifest the socially destructive outworkings of Wilson's teaching. This is a much-needed treatment of a topic neglected for far too long. Barrow's valuable contribution is an excellent introduction to the historical theonomy of the Westminster divines and is sure to prime the reader for much productive study of the view of civil government "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). This item is also available as a bound photocopy for $1.99 [US funds]).


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

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 

        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 

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

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 

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 

        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

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 

*[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

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

*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 

        *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

        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

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

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 

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 

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 

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

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

*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 

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 

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, 

 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 

10.     Eschatology

        a.      The view of Anabaptists
                (1)     Christ will reign bodily upon the earth for a thousand 

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 

*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

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


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 

3. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Book House, 1982), p. 110.  Emphases

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

6. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Book House, 1982), p. 114.  Emphases

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), 

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

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

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

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), 

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

42. John Calvin, "Commentary on Psalm 15:1", _Calvin's Commentaries_ 
(Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Book House, 1979), IV:204.  Emphases 

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

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 
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 

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://  Emphases added.

82. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://  Emphases added.

83. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://  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

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.






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 (forthcoming, #? cassettes)
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."



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.
(Bound photocopy) $9.95-60%=3.98


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.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-85%=14.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $29.00 (US funds)


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!
(Rare bound photocopy) $199.95-80%=39.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $59.00 (US funds)


Act, Declaration, And Testimony, For The Whole Of The Covenanted Reformation, As Attained To, And Established In, Britain and Ireland; Particularly Betwixt The Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive. As, Also, Against All The Steps Of Defection From Said Reformation, Whether In Former Or Later Times, Since The Overthrow Of That Glorious Work, Down To This Present Day (1876)
Upholds the original work of the Westminster Assembly and testifies to the abiding worth and truth formulated in the Westminster family of documents. Upholds and defends the crown rights of King Jesus in church and state, denouncing those who would remove the crown from Christ's head by denying His right to rule (by His law) in both the civil and ecclesiastical spheres. Testifies to the received doctrine, government, worship, and discipline of the Church of Scotland in her purest (reforming) periods. Applies God's Word to the Church's corporate attainments "with a judicial approbation of the earnest contendings and attainments of the faithful, and a strong and pointed judicial condemnation of error and the promoters thereof" (The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness, Dec. 17/93, p. 558. 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.
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99

(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)


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).
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)


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.
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $14.95-70%=4.49
(Hardcover photocopy) $14.00 (US funds)


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).
(Rare bound photocopy) $29.95-70%=8.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)


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!
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $199.95-90%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $39.00 (US funds)


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.
(Rare bound photocopy) $99.95-80%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $39.00 (US funds)

Back to swrb home page