Preliminary
Remarks.
1. Dissociation and separation are two different things. At the outset I
think it is important to note that we did not separate from the Reformation
Presbyterian Church, but rather we dissociated from it. The difference lies in
the fact that the pretended presbytery was never actually constituted at any
time or in any way. You cannot separate from that which is a nonentity.
2. I also affirm that the PRCE did not actually swear any vows to the
pretended presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church.
Our first order of business in regard to Mr. Bacon's slanderous charge is to
complete the record of correspondence between our two congregations. Mr. Bacon
perhaps forgot to publish his letter of April 23, 1996, on his website, so I
thought it wise to do so now for the purpose of providing a more complete
record of correspondence. In so doing, we can allow Mr. Bacon to argue his case
in his own words.
His correspondence is as follows:
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:47:12 -0500
From: Richard Bacon
<dBacon@airmail.net
To: Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmontondm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca, davese@microsoft.com, ScotKirk@aol.com,
tWorrell l@aol.com
Subject: Question re. vow
The question came to my mailbox
as to what membership and subscription vows the officers of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church either had taken or were required to take. I submit the
following from the July 22, 1995 minutes [inter alia]:
"Being obliged to keep pure
the Faith once delivered to the saints, and to hold fast the form of sound
words, we, the officebearers of Reformation Presbyterian Church (Reformation
Presbyterian Church), fully subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith
and Catechisms, Larger and Shorter. Through this full subscription, we adopt
and receive (without amendment or scruple) these aforesaid Westminster
Standards as our individual confession of faith, the very system of truth
taught in holy Scripture, To these landmarks we voluntarily, yet conscionably,
pledge our engagement, in doctrine and judicature, extending through the
duration of our communion with this body."
"Our full subscription to
the Westminster Standards is founded upon our love of, and duty to, veracity
and sincerity, as we interpret them in the plain and univocal sense, striving
to discern the original intent of the framers. We bind ourselves to an
immediate and forthright disclosure of our particular interpretation, should it
be questioned by an office-bearer, communing member, or should our adherence to
this full subscription fluctuate, we will agreeably submit (with utmost care,
faithfulness, and humility) to the lawful hearing and determination of the
supreme judicatory."
Not only does this statement
contain such words as "subscribe, adopt, receive, confess, covenant of
union, pledge our engagement, and agreeably submit," the court went on to
divide the vote so as to demonstrate the unanimity of the statement. The
division of the vote was 5-0 with NO ABSTENTIONS. Further, it was spread upon
the minutes:
"This vote was considered by
those voting as the taking of a vow obliging compliance with the statement. The
moderator's vote was included in the number recorded above."
Further, these minutes were
accepted and approved as accurate at the subsequent Presbytery meeting held
April 1213, 1996.
Additionally, it should be noted
that the Presbytery FORMALLY and unanimously repented of its previous act of
breaking covenant with Whitestone Presbyterian Church of Biloxi, MS at the same
(April 12-13) meeting. The sinful handling of the Whitestone situation cannot
therefore be precedential in any manner.
Finally, with the formal (and
again, unanimous) adoption of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Manual
"insofar as it applies to us," the Reformation Presbyterian Church
has from the time of its adoption committed itself to these formal vows by all
those either then or in the future seeking ordination at her hands:
1. Do you believe the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith
and manners?
2. Do you sincerely own and
declare the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this
church, to be the confession of your faith; and do you own the doctrine therein
contained to be the true doctrine, which you will constantly adhere to?
3. Do you own and acknowledge the
Presbyterian Church Government of this church by kirksession, Presbyteries,
Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies, to be the only government of this
church; and do you engage to submit thereto, concur therewith, and not to
endeavour, directly or indirectly, the prejudice or subversion thereof.
4. Do you believe that the Lord
Jesus Christ, as king and head of the church, has therein appointed a
government in the hands of church officers, distinct from, and not subordinate
in its own province to, civil government, and that the Civil Magistrate does
not possess jurisdiction or authoritative control over the regulation of the
affairs of Christ's Church; and do you approve of the general principles
embodied in the Claim, Declaration, and Protest, adopted by the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1842, and in the Protest of ministers and
elders, commissioners from Presbyteries to the General Assembly, read in
presence of the Royal Commissioner on 18th May, 1843, as declaring the views
which are sanctioned by the Word of God, and the standards of this church, with
respect to the spirituality and freedom of the church of Christ, and her
subjection to him as her only Head and to his Word as her only standard?
5. Do you promise to observe
uniformity of worship and of the administration of all public ordinances within
this church, as the same are at present preformed and allowed?
6. Do you approve of the Deed of
separation of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland adopted by its first
Presbytery at Portree on the 14th day of August, 1893?
7. Do you accept the office of an
Elder (Deacon) of this Congregation and promise, through grace, faithfully,
diligently, and cheerfully, to discharge all the duties thereof?
Moreover, the formula of
subscription for all Probationers, Ministers, Elders, and Deacons at the time
of their admission in the presence of the congregation is to be as follows:
"I, ______________________,
do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine
contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of
this Church to by [sic] the truths of God; and I do own the same as the
confession of my faith; as likewise I do own the purity of worship presently
authorised and practised in the Reformation Presbyterian Church, and also the
Presbyterian Government and discipline thereof; which doctrine, worship, and
Church government, I am persuaded, are founded on the Word of God, and
agreeable thereto; I also approve of the general principles respecting the
jurisdiction of the church, and her subjection to Christ as her only Head,
which are contained in the Claim of Right and in the Protest referred to in the
questions already put to me; and I promise that, through the grace of God, I
shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same, and to the utmost of my power
shall, in my station, assert, maintain, and defend the said doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government of this Church, by KirkSessions, Presbyteries,
Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies, together with the liberty and
exclusive jurisdiction thereof; and that I shall, in my practice, conform
myself to the said worship, and submit to the said discipline, government, and
exclusive jurisdiction thereof; and not endeavour, directly or indirectly, the
prejudice or subversion of the same; and I promise that I shall follow no
divisive course from the doctrine, worship, discipline, government, and
exclusive jurisdiction of this Church, renouncing all doctrines, tenets, and
opinions whatsoever, contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said doctrine,
worship, discipline, or jurisdiction of the same.
While some may wish to argue that
the particular deeds and declarations which created first the Free Church of
Scotland and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland do not apply directly to
our situation (see queries #4 and 6), that would not negate the fact that the
subscription act of July 22, 1995 does clearly and simpliciter apply to us.
I believe all the recipients of
this post have access to the deeds and protests mentioned in the queries above.
Dick Bacon
dBacon@airmail.net
The above cited letter clearly demonstrates the content of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church's present ordination vows.
1. The PRCE dissociated before the approval of the disputed minute that
allegedly constituted the Presbytery.
Mr. Bacon alleges in his correspondence that we swore a vow on July 22,
1995, and dissociated from presbytery on March 27, 1996. Subsequently (eight
months later), on April 1213, 1996, the Presbytery approved the minutes of
July 22, 1995.
I point this out to demonstrate that the PRCE dissociated two weeks before
the approval of the minutes containing the alleged constitution of the
Presbytery. We neither had, nor desired to have, any say in their approval. I
contend that these alleged vows never took place. What Mr. Bacon misrepresents
to be vows were simply an agreement to the wording of a statement of
confessional subscription.
2. The minutes were inaccurately stated and do not reflect what took
place at that meeting.
I contend that the minutes of July 22, 1995 were inaccurately stated (by the
clerk) and erroneously approved by the remaining members of the Presbytery. The
questionable approval of these minutes in no way reflects the belief of the
PRCE. The Reformation Presbyterian Church can affirm and approve all the
minutes they wish, but the fact remains that, in our judgment, the clerk
misstated and misrepresented what took place at that meeting. We believe the following
statement to be an editorial remark by the clerk as to his own interpretation
of the vote on the subscription statement: "The vote was considered by
those voting as the taking of a vow obliging compliance with the [subscription
GB] statement. The moderator's vote was included in the number above." Mr.
Seekamp's (the clerk) private opinion, should have been removed from the record
at the following meeting but sadly it was not.
3. Every member of the pretended presbytery except the FPCR Session agrees
that no vow was taken to constitute presbytery (See Appendix B).
The pretended Presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church had six
voting members (four ministers and two ruling elders). Mr. Price (pastor of the
PRCE) was absent and therefore could not have taken any alleged vows. I (Greg
Barrow), attended this meeting, representing the Session of the PRCE, but I did
not take any vows as the minutes inaccurately record. Of the three ministers
present at that meeting, two of them (Mr. Robinson and Dr. Crick) both argue
that no vows were taken at that meeting or at any other time. One lone session
consisting of Mr. Bacon and Mr. Seekamp (ruling elder) stands by itself
alleging that vows were taken in the meeting of July 22, 1995. Four out of six
men who had voting privileges deny that any vows were taken at that meeting,
yet sadly Mr. Bacon continues to assert that they were. The voting majority has
spoken but Mr. Bacon refuses to believe that the emperor (presbytery) has no
clothes. No constitution was formally adopted, and no ministerial vows were
sworn in God's name. What Presbytery in the history of Presbyterian polity has
ever claimed to constitute in this way? Let Mr. Bacon explain why 66% of the
pretended presbytery and 75% of the ministers have concluded that no vows were
taken in that meeting or in any other meeting. Mr. Bacon's appeal to his
erroneous minutes are sadly selfserving and he should admit that the clerk
misstated the actual events and intentions of the men present.
The fallacy of begging the question is committed when, instead of offering
proof for its conclusion, an argument simply reasserts the conclusion in another
form.
1. According to Mr. Bacon the PRCE broke her vow when she vowed to,
"agreeably submit (with utmost care, faithfulness, and humility) to the
lawful hearing and determination of the supreme judicatory," and then
without submitting to their authority, proceeded to unilaterally dissociate
from the presbytery. However, the very point in question is whether or not a
lawful authority of any kind existed in the Reformation Presbyterian Church.
Mr. Bacon is simply reasserting his conclusion and begging the question when he
says that we broke our vow by not submitting to something that we didn't
believe existed.
2. Furthermore, I contend that even if this vow was actually taken, it was
an unlawful vow. We could not lawfully promise to submit to a judicatory that
did not exist. Because, in our judgment, no lawful judicatory did exist at the
time of the supposed vow, the alleged vow would have been unlawful, forbidden
by God, and therefore not binding. This is consistent with the doctrine taught
in the Confession of Faith which states:
No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God (Westminster Confession of Faith 22:7).
Question 113: What are the sins
forbidden in the third commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the
third commandment are, ... perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots;
violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of
things unlawful; (Westminster
Larger Catechism).
3. Moreover, I affirm that we are forbidden by the Word of God to take any
oaths contrary to the lawful oaths that already bind us. We are already bound
by Solemn League and Covenant and
therefore bound to:
...sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us (The Solemn League and Covenant).
As already discussed in Misrepresentation #2, we believe that at the time of
the swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant, both Canada and the United States were part of "his Majesty's
dominion." Consequently, we believe that we are the "posterity"
of these covenanters and are formally bound to uphold these covenants.
The church may be very culpable in neglecting the duty of public covenanting, whereby they give a formal consent, in their own persons, to these solemn obligations; or there may be seasons passing over the church, in which they may not have a call to engage in this solemn service; yet no neglect of this kind, whether sinful or necessary, can hinder this obligation from descending to posterity. Neither can the communication of this obligation to future generations be obstructed, by the wickedness of a people, in withdrawing their neck from the yoke of God, in acting contrary to their solemn engagements, and in openly denying that this obligation is remaining on them. No doubt, all this was the case with some of the generations of the house of Israel and Judah, nevertheless they were under the obligation of the covenants which God had made with their fathers, and the obligation of it was even through them transmitted to their posterity (Archibald Mason, "Observations On the Public Covenants," 1821, pp. 47, 48, appended to The Fall of Babylon the Great, , SWRB reprint, 1997).
Since we, as parties to the Covenant, are already bound to, "promoting
Reformation and endeavouring to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising;" we could not be bound by the
contrary oath that the Reformation Presbyterian Church is claiming we swore. We
could neither promote reformation, nor uniformity in religion, by swearing to
submit to a pretended independent denomination who were not themselves
submitted, but rather opposed to our already binding Covenants. The independent
Presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church is submitted to no one; they
have no published terms of communion and they have ordination vows that are
sinful in and of themselves. Even if the PRCE swore an oath (which we didn't)
to this independent body, we wouldn't have been bound to keep such a unlawful
and contrary oath.
Mr. Bacon and the Reformation Presbyterian Church say, "it is not
necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms," but we say that we already have, whether they
understand it or not. Their slighting and censuring of our covenanted
forefathers by slandering the intrinsic obligation of their representative
promises is directly spoken against by the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland:
The second sort of enemies, from which our present dangers arise, are secret malignants and discovenanters who may be known by these and like characters: Their slighting or censuring of the public resolutions of this Kirk and State. Their consulting and labouring to raise jealousies and divisions to retard or hinder the execution of what is ordered by public judicatories. Their slandering the Covenant of the three kingdoms and expedition into England, as not necessary for the good of religion (The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, [16381649 inclusive], p. 397).
To summarize. These are three main arguments we use to defend ourselves
against Mr. Bacon's slanderous misrepresentation that we have broken our vows.
1. Mr. Bacon's charge is begging the question.
2. We could not lawfully promise to submit to a judicatory that did not
actually exist.
3. We were already bound by the Covenants of our forefathers, and it is
unlawful to take a contrary oath. An unlawful oath is not binding.
Did the Reformation Presbyterian Church ever lawfully constitute itself as
an independent denomination and if so when?
I set before the reader a partial list of serious inconsistencies in the
Reformation Presbyterian Church's failed attempt to constitute itself.
According to Mr. Bacon's own correspondence (as published above), the
presbytery was constituted by a vow taken on July 22, 1995. If that is true
(and he cannot deny that he said it), then how does he explain the following socalled
actions of presbytery?
1. Ministers and congregations were received into the Reformation
Presbyterian Church, Jan 28, 1995, approximately six months before the
Reformation Presbyterian Church was allegedly constituted by the above
mentioned vow. How does an unconstituted group receive ministers and
congregations? What were they received into? This inconsistency is the most
serious. All the supposed churches and ministers of the RPC were received into
a nonentity. Mr. Bacon admits that the Presbytery was not constituted until six
months later. How does he reconcile this irreconcilable evidence? He is
condemned out of his own mouth.
2. How did an unconstituted presbytery compose a commission to examine John
Cripps for licensure on February 25, 1995, if the Reformation Presbyterian
Church was constituted by a vow six months later? Composing a commission is an
act of presbytery. How does Mr. Bacon reconcile this with the fact that
according to his own words Presbytery did not yet exist?
3. As an unconstituted presbytery how was Tim Worrell licensed to preach
(June 22, 1995) with no constitutional questions directed to him? No
constitutional questions at a licensure is bad enough, but further Mr. Bacon
must explain upon what basis Mr. Worrell was licensed. He couldn't have been
examined by Presbytery, that's for sure, since it didn't yet exist according to
Mr. Bacon's own words. It should also be noted that I received an email from
Tim Worrell (October 21, 1997), indicating that he is no longer affiliated with
the Reformation Presbyterian Church.
This sample of condemning evidence clearly shows that the Reformation
Presbyterian Church was seriously confused about how to properly constitute
itself. When these inconsistencies began to be vocalized, Mr. Bacon and Mr.
Seekamp began their attempt to justify the pretended Presbytery's existence.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Bacon, in his self justifying haste, chose a
date (after the fact) for the constitution of the Reformation Presbyterian
Church that was far to late to make sense with the RPC's previous actions.
Sadly, trying to cover up bad policy simply landed him in a worse position now
that all of this is being made public. Mr. Bacon's present congregation, at
least, should demand answers and repentance for the way he has led them into
this embarrassing public spectacle. He has already seen this evidence and
rejected the correction from the other members of the group. His obstinacy is
sinful. He needs to repent in the same way that each of the other men in the
group has. We all should be ashamed (and are ashamed) at this ludicrous attempt
at constituting a presbytery. The PRCE, as a session, formally and publicly
repented at the time of our dissociation and also publicly repented before our
congregation for so poorly representing the cause of Christ and Presbyterian
polity. We now plead with Mr. Bacon and Mr. Seekamp to recognize their folly
and do likewise.
1. The Reformation Presbyterian Church requires sinful and and unlawful
ordination vows.
To further illustrate the confusion of the Reformation Presbyterian Church's
alleged constitution, we direct the readers attention to the way in which they
have qualified their adoption of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Manual of Practice.
In the forgotten letter cited above, Mr. Bacon writes,
Finally, with the formal (and again, unanimous) adoption of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Manual "insofar as it applies to us," the Reformation Presbyterian Church has from the time of its adoption committed itself to these formal vows by all those either then or in the future seeking ordination at her hands.
How are we to judge a group of men, calling itself a presbytery, who claim
that they are constituted upon formal vows and manuals of practice, "insofar
as it applies to us?" What if couples
swore their marriage vows, "insofar as it applies to us"? Who knows
what these men have sworn to uphold? With this clause anything could be
included or excluded at the whim of the socalled presbytery. This leaves the
pretended Presbytery's doctrine and practice open to extreme abuse and leaves
the socalled constitution of the Reformation Presbyterian Church on a totally
arbitrary footing.
I submit that by using this phrase, "insofar as it applies to us,"
the Reformation Presbyterian Church has adopted inherently unlawful
ordination vows. Either the ordination
vows stated in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Manual of Church
Practice apply or they don't, but to leave them up in the air
provides no certain rule or protection for their congregation. Truly this is a
gross blunder on the part of the remaining two men that call themselves a
presbytery. A vow (constitution?) based on subscription, doctrine and practice,
"insofar as it applies to us," is no Biblical vow. There is a mental
reservation built right into the ordination vows of all their officers, and
this is inherently unlawful. This should not inspire confidence in those over
whom these men pretend to rule.
An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels (Westminster Confession of Faith, 22:4, emphases added).
2. The Reformation Presbyterian Church violates the binding obligations
of the Solemn League and Covenant.
Finally, I would note that Mr. Bacon and the Reformation Presbyterian Church
have chosen these inherently sinful vows over the intrinsically binding
obligation of the National Covenant and
the Solemn League and Covenant.
Mr. Bacon's open antipathy to the Covenants has already been discussed in the
previous section. Men who neglect what already binds them will be given over to
a work of their own imagination. In the case of the Reformation Presbyterian
Church they have rejected the Covenants and have taken contradictory and
inherently unlawful vows, further aggravating their already serious crime of
covenant breaking and perjury.
July, Session 21, 1648.
That they beware of all things
which may ensnare their consciences, as evil council, evil company, false
information, rash promises, and especially that they beware taking any Oaths,
subscribing any Bonds, which may relate to the Covenant and cause of God unless
such Oaths and Bonds be approved by the General Assembly or their Commissioners
for the public affairs of the Kirk (The Acts of the General Assemblies of
the Church of Scotland, [16381649
inclusive], 1682, , SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 399).
December 20, Session 26, 1638.
Concerning the subscribing of the
Confession of Faith lately subscribed by
his Majesties Commissioner, and urged to be subscribed by others.
And in the mean time, lest any
should fall under the danger of a contradictory oath, and bring the wrath of
God upon themselves and the land, for the abuse of His name and Covenant; The Assembly by their ecclesiastical authority,
prohibits and discharges, that no member of this Kirk swear or subscribe the
said Confession so far wrested to a contrary meaning, under pain of all
ecclesiastical censure (The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of
Scotland, [16381649 inclusive], p. 63, emphases added).
When thou vowest a vow unto God,
defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast
vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow
and not pay (Ecclesiastes 5:45, AV).
Mr. Bacon's socalled constitution is a fiction and a nonentity. To
recognize this independent group of men as a legitimate Presbytery would be
both sinful and unscriptural. Upon investigation we have seen how seriously far
off the mark they really are. Thankfully Mr. Robinson and Dr. Crick have taken
the correct action and dissociated. All that is left is for Mr. Bacon and Mr.
Seekamp to admit that the emperor has no clothes and this whole sordid mess can
be dismissed to the scrap heap of historical anomalies in the Presbyterian
church.
While Mr. Bacon's forgotten letter is fresh in the reader's mind, I wish to
move on to note that Mr. Bacon requires some very surprising things of all the
ordained men in his group. Let the reader keep in mind that Mr. Bacon and the
Reformation Presbyterian Church have (at least in their own judgment) vowed to
uphold the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Manual of Practice. Any and all Probationers, Ministers, Elders, and
Deacons at the time of their admission in the presence of the congregation must
subscribe all of the vows listed in the above mentioned letter.
Perhaps Mr. Bacon will answer that he said (in his above cited letter):
While some may wish to argue that the particular deeds and declarations which created first the Free Church of Scotland and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland do not apply directly to our situation (see queries #4 and 6), that would not negate the fact that the subscription act of July 22, 1995 does clearly and simpliciter apply to us.
I respond by saying, that according to the letter cited above Mr. Bacon has
included queries #4 and #6 in his ordination requirements. He could have left
them out, but chose not to. Furthermore, we note that the Reformation
Presbyterian Church has purposely removed items #8, #9, #10 and #11 from the
list of vows listed in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Manual, which would lead us to believe that they purposely
included queries #4 and #6. Next, let the reader remember that Mr. Bacon has
condemned us for requiring historical testimony as terms of communion and let
the reader consider that Mr. Bacon is again doing precisely the same thing as
he condemns. In requiring all officers of the RPC to answer queries #4 and #6
in the affirmative, he is saying that understanding and agreeing with this
historical testimony is necessary if a man wants to preach or govern in the
church. Does Mr. Bacon require the approbation of the traditions of men for
ordination and government in the Reformation Presbyterian Church? Is this not
in substance that for which he has condemned us? I am speaking as he did for
the purpose of illustrating the obvious contradiction that Mr. Bacon faces.
Again his own accusations are recoiling upon his own head.
Querie #4. ...Do you approve of the general principles embodied in the Claim, Declaration, and Protest, adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1842, and in the Protest of ministers and elders, commissioners from Presbyteries to the General Assembly, read in presence of the Royal Commissioner on 18th May, 1843, as declaring the views which are sanctioned by the Word of God, and the standards of this church, with respect to the spirituality and freedom of the church of Christ, and her subjection to him as her only Head and to his Word as her only standard? (Ordination Vow of the Reformation Presbyterian Church cited from A Manual of Practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland based on the Practice of the Church of Scotland in her Several Courts, 4th edition as revised in 1886 p. 98, emphases added).
To be ordained, to preach or govern in the Reformation Presbyterian Church
you must approve of the following judgments of history.
To be ordained in the RPC you must approve of the installation of William of
Orange and Mary (both Erastian) as lawful King and Queen of Scotland. You must
approve of the Revolution Settlement and consequently the constitutionality of
the Revolution Church as set up by Parliament on the grounds of the common
consent of the people (rather than upon the biblical grounds of divine right).
What follows is a short excerpt provided as an example of what is required
by the Reformation Presbyterian Church in her ordination vows.
First, the said Confession itself, containing the doctrine and principle above set forth, was, "ratified and established, and voted and approven as the public and avowed Confession of this Church," by the fifth Act of the second session of the first parliament of King William and Queen Mary, entitled, "Act Ratifying the Confession of Faith, and Settling Presbyterian Church Government" (1690, c.5) (Claim, Declaration, and Protest cited from A Manual of Practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland based on the Practice of the Church of Scotland in her Several Courts, 4th edition as revised in 1886, p. 98, emphases added).
It is evident that all who seek ordination in this Presbytery must agree
that the way Presbyterianism was settled in this act was lawful. They must
approve of an Erastian King and Queen calling upon the popular sentiment of the
majority to establish the Form of Government in the Church of Christ. It is
easy to see that this is a direct repudiation of the divine right
Presbyterianism set up in the Second Reformation.
To further illustrate the pernicious principles inculcated in the
Reformation Presbyterian Church's ordination vows I direct your attention to
their sixth ordination querie.
6. Do you approve of the Deed of separation of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland adopted by its first Presbytery at Portree on the 14th day of August, 1893?
A sample portion of the Deed of Separation reads as follows:
We the undersigned Ministers and Elders of the Free Church of Scotland considering that the constitution of the said church as settled in 1843 is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, the First and Second Books of Discipline, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Claim, Declaration, and Protest of 1842, the Protest of 1843, the Act of Separation and Deed of Demission executed in the last mentioned year, the formula appointed to be subscribed by probationers before receiving license, and by all officebearers at the time of their admission, together with the Questions appointed to be put to the same parties at ordination and admission, and the Acts of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland prior to 1843... seeing that the present Church now calling herself the Free Church of Scotland has... repeatedly passed resolutions having for their object the separation of church and state... by sanctioning the use of uninspired hymns, has departed from the original standard of the Free Church of Scotland; and by the authorization of instrumental music in the public worship of God has altered the ancient and universal practice of the Church of Scotland... not only tolerates but supports office bearers who do not hold the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith... have practically embraced Voluntaryism.... has ceased to represent the church of Scotland as settled in 1843.... we do hereby separate from the present subsisting church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland (Deed of Separation cited from A Manual of Practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland based on the Practice of the Church of Scotland in her Several Courts, 4th edition as revised in 1886, p. 116117, emphases added).
Here Mr. Bacon and the RPC vow to embrace the Revolution Church and all the
Acts of General Assembly prior to 1843. This proves, unless this is one of the
vows that do not apply to Mr. Bacon, that he has finally declared himself as
approving of an Erastian government (at least as being lawful in a covenanted
nation), and that all officers of the Reformation Presbyterian Church must
approve of the Revolution settlement before their ordination.
The Revolution Settlement was founded in compromise and as we shall see, was
composed of men not fit to constitute the true Church of Scotland. These were
men who founded the church upon constitutional principles different than those
of the previously established and covenanted Church of Scotland (16381649). In
effect, the Revolution Church was a group of men, of whom, the vast majority
were unqualified (by means of perjury) to be ministers of God, and who brought
forth a schismatic body (a pretended Assembly) upon a backslidden version of
the original constitution of the Church of Scotland. At the Revolution
Settlement, the scriptural attainments of the Second Reformation were thrown
aside. These men were ready to change the constitution of the Covenanted Church
of Scotland to suit the fashion of their circumstances. They broke covenant
with God by changing the Constitution and Form of Government from that of the
faithful General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649), to that of
"The Act for the Abolishing of the Acts Contrary to the True
Religion" (1592). By the notorious action of the Parliament of 1690, the
higher attainments of the Second Reformation were wilfully buried in the
interests of political expediency.
Andrew Clarkson explains:
Now let it be considered, that this retrograde Settlement [1690 GB], or this Act of Parliament unto which this church fled back and founded on the late Revolution, was before the Church had been reformed from several abuses, viz., Before she had got the heavy yoke of the King's Erastian Supremacy and Patronages shaken of, and long before she had Ecclesiastically asserted, and practically maintained her scriptural Claim of Right, viz., the Divine Right of Presbytery, and intrinsic power of the church, the two prime branches of Christ's headship in and over his own House and before the National Covenant was explained as condemning Prelacy, together with the Five Articles of Perth, and the civil places and power of Kirkmen; and before the Solemn League and Covenant was made, and before the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms Larger and Shorter, Directory for Public Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church Government, were made and established, as parts of the Covenanted Uniformity in Religion between the Churches of Christ in the three kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland; and exceeding far short of that blessed, attained, Covenanted Reformation so happily established in this church in 1649: I say, the accepting of, and going into this way of settling, thereby deserting and shamefully disregarding so many excellent and truly valuable pieces of Reformation, privileges and liberties sworn to, in our sacred and solemn Covenants, attained between 1637 and 1650, seems to be a plain yielding to them, who deny Presbyterian government to be of Divine Right though often clearly proven, and judicially asserted by the Church, and legally established in her purer and better times; yea, this amounts to such a Step of Defection and apostasy, as seems without parallel in sacred or profane history and withal too shrewdly discovers this Revolution Church to be upon another footing, and to be called by another name, than the successors of the true and genuine Reformed Covenanted Church of Christ in Scotland; namely Changelings, yea, Backsliders (Andrew Clarkson, Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting From the Revolution Church of Scotland, 1731, SWRB reprint, 1996, pp. 1415).
The friends of the Reformation must regret that this Parliament did not repeal those iniquitous Acts which condemned the National Covenant and Solemn League as in themselves unlawful oaths: which annulled all Acts and Constitutions, ecclesiastical and civil, approving of these covenants which stigmatized the General Assembly that met at Glasgow, 1638, as an unlawful and seditious assembly... and that instead of modifying the law of patronage, it did not restore the Act of 1649, by which this evil was utterly abolished ("Secession Testimony," 1831, cited in J.C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 1887, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 151)
Not only did the Revolution Church principally change the constitution of
the Second Reformation, most if not all of the constituent ministers who made
up this pretended Assembly were guilty of complying with the corruptions and
evils of those times. This body was composed of Resolutioners (the first
compromisers, covenant breakers and overturners of the Second Reformation);
Indulged ministers (those who would paid allegiance to bloodthirsty tyrants
rather than defend the crown rights of Christ over His Church); those who gave
their bond of security to the bloody council; and those who accepted the Duke
of York's Popish toleration which promoted Antichrist's sects, heresies and
errors. This Revolution Church was made up of men who would use all their force
and pretended authority against any witnesses of Christ who would remind them
of their sins and stand for the cause of Christ (especially the United
Societies). These Revolution ministers kept silent about the burning of the
Covenants (1661), the Abjuration Act (1662) which declared the National and Solemn League and Covenant to be unlawful oaths, and the Act Recissory (1661),
which annihilated all the civil and religious liberties of the people of
Scotland. The character of these men and their fitness for the ministry is well
described in the following statements:
There was one thing in which it proved practically disastrous, but which at the time there seemed to be no way of evading. This was the receiving without very rigid test of the "curate" as they were called into the Presbyterian ministry. There were at that this period about 900 parishes in Scotland, and these were occupied by men who had conformed to Prelacy. Of the ejected ministers only about 90 survived. Even after room, therefore, had been made for them, there remained many charges which would have been left unoccupied if the former incumbents had not been employed. That they were ready to change their colours to suit the fashion of the hour did not say very much for their strength of principle; and that before that they had approved themselves to a government whose hands were red with the blood of martyrs was not a point in their history from which very favourable conclusions could be drawn a to their personal piety.... They were incorporated into the church accordingly; and we shall see how their presence came to complexion after its history. In point of fact they became the founders of the moderate party that party to whose spirit and policy may be ascribed a good many of the misfortunes of the church of Scotland ("Our Church Heritage," cited in J.C. Johnston,Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 1887, SWRB reprint, 1995, pp. 151152, emphases added).
When the faithful witnesses (the United Societies) petitioned this pretended
Assembly calling them to repent of these defections and calling these men to
admit their compliance with the corruption and evils of the times, how did this
Revolution Assembly respond?
Matthew Hutchison in his book entitled The Reformed Presbyterian Church
in Scotland, summarizes their response as
follows.
Its [the Revolution General Assembly GB] meaning was simply this: there is no hope of obtaining what you ask for from the Assembly, your only course is to follow the example of your ministers, fall quietly in with the church as now constituted, and make the best of it (The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 1893, SWRB, 1997, p. 104).
The Assembly of the Revolution Church made no formal effort toward
repentance and no protests to the King to undo the evils that were done since
1649. Indeed, these men are notable for nothing but cowardly compliance with
the Erastian government. At the First Reformation (15601596) and at the Second
Reformation (16381649), the church adopted its own Form of Government and the
civil government afterward sanctioned it. Under the compromise and silence of
these Revolution Church leaders, we find that the restoration of Presbytery was
a state act altogether not adopted upon the biblical ground of the divine
right of Presbyterian church government but instead grounded upon that which
was agreeable to the inclinations of the people.
This is what Mr. Bacon and the Reformation Presbyterian Church would have
their officers swear to uphold and embrace at the time of their ordination.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16:17, AV).
I again ask whether the pretended presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian
Church is lawfully constituted? No, not lawfully! When she finally got around
to adopting the Constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, she
adopted an unlawful constitution that approves of the Revolution Church and all
the unlawful acts of her unfaithful and pretended Assemblies. Ultimately, the
Reformation Presbyterian Church is swearing to uphold the testimony of the
church that overthrew the Covenants and the original constitution of the Second
Reformation. I unswervingly affirm that the officers of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church are required to swear to a false constitution which is
schismatic and destructive to the Church of Christ. If the Reformation
Presbyterian Church truly approves of the Revolution Settlement (as they
profess by their present ordination vows), then let the reader consider that
Mr. Bacon stands atop a mountain of corporate backsliding. It is not hard to
understand why anyone would be justified in staying separate or dissociating
from him until he repents.
Then again Mr. Bacon may simply say that he vowed to hold to these
ordination vows, "insofar as they applied to us," and that he doesn't
approve of the Revolution Settlement. I have already discussed how it is
impossible to pin down a man who places a mental reservation in his vows.
Either way, Mr. Bacon has a real problem. He can choose between the Revolution
Settlement and his mental reservation in his ordination vows. Whatever he
chooses he needs to repent. I pray that he recognizes that either option is
sinful.
This is a brief explanation of the events and circumstances that led to Mr.
Bacon's frivolous and sinful charges. I have demonstrated that his charges are
unwarranted and that the pretended presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian
Church is sadly confused about what constitutes a presbytery. This nonentity
called the Reformation Presbyterian Church should be disbanded and remembered
as a mistake of gross ignorance and foolish pride. Every original member of this
group, except for the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett Session, has
admitted that no constitutional vows were taken and has since dissociated. Mr.
Bacon needs to realize that the emperor has no clothes, and then perhaps he
will repent of his slanderous charges against the PRCE. If the public
presentation of his serious inconsistencies, covenant breaking and promoting
unlawful ordination vows won't do it, then
I am afraid that he may continually labour under his delusion. His charge that
the PRCE has broken her vows is a sad testimony of a man either lacking
integrity or too proud to admit his sin. I pray it's not both.
Go back to Table of Contents
Go to Appendix B
This book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended (318 pages), is also available from Still Waters Revival Books
(swrb@swrb.com) as a cerlox bound photocopy (for $14.99 US funds) or as a
Hardcover photocopy (for $25.00 US funds). Please add appropriate postage and
handling. Thank you.
All pricing in US funds.
The Westminster Confession of Faith
"The product of Puritan conflict," stated Shedd, reaching "a
perfection of statement never elsewhere achieved.""All that learning
the most profound and extensive, intellect the most acute and searching, and
piety the most sincere and earnest, could accomplish, was thus concentrated in
the Westminster Assembly_s Confession of Faith, which may be safely termed the
most perfect statement of Systematic Theology ever framed by the Christian
Church," writes Hetherington in The History of the Westminster Assembly
of Divines (p. 345, emphasis added). "These are worth an
hundred victories on the battle field. We do not fear to say of them that they
are the finest transfusion into uninspired language of the sublime, awful,
blessed truths of the Word of God which the Church has as yet been honored to
make... Never can the Covenanters be robbed of the immortal honor of having,
while at the summit of their power, published this great principle to the
world" noted J.A. Wylie, in praise of the Westminster Standards (cited in
Johnston_s Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 101). Concerning the Shorter Catechism, which is one of the items
also included in this book, Mitchell, in his Westminster Assembly:
Its History and Standards, notes:
"...it is a thoroughly Calvinistic and Puritan catechism, the ripest fruit
of the Assembly's thought and experience, maturing and finally fixing the
definitions of theological terms to which Puritanism for half a century had
been leading up and gradually coming closer and closer to in its legion of
catechisms" (p. 431). The WCF is the greatest of all the creeds of the
Christian church. The church of Christ cannot be creedless and live. Especially
in an age of doubt and confusion, it is her duty to define and proclaim the one
true faith. Nowhere has the Reformed church done this so effectively as in the
Westminster family of documents. This book represents Reformed thinking at its
purest and best. It was intended, as part of the covenanted reformation taking
place during its compilation, to be adopted as the binding confessional standard
for every individual, family, court, church, and legislature in the British
Isles. Study it carefully and we think that you will see why this same goal
should be covenanted to by all serious minded followers of the Lord Jesus
Christ. This is the definitive edition of the WCF and its many related
documents. It contains Manton's "Epistle to the Reader," the Larger
Catechism, Shorter Catechism, "The Sum of Saving Knowledge,"
"The National Covenant (1638)," "The Solemn League and Covenant
(1643)," "Acknowledgment of Publick Sins and Breaches of the Covenant
(1648)," "The Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645),"
The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645)," "The Directory
for Family Worship (1647)," an extensive index and more! "Every
effort has been made, by sparing no expense or labour... to render it the
Standard Edition," note the publishers. An essential book for every
Christian home, church, and state! Next to the Bible itself, no other book
can furnish you with as much necessary spiritual information.
Related item: William Hetherington's History of the Westminster Assembly ($9.98/cerlox bound photocopy or $19.00/Hardcover
photocopy).
(Hardcover) $39.95 - 50% = $19.98
(Softcover) $24.95 - 40% = $14.97
(Pocket edition, just the Confession: without scripture proofs, the Catechisms,
etc.)
$4.95-20%= $3.96
(The Confession on cassette)
$2.98
(Larger Catechism on 2 cassettes)
$5.96
(Shorter Catechism on cassette)
$2.98
Protesters Vindicated: Or, A Just and Necessary Defence of
Protesting Against, and Withdrawing from This National Church of Scotland on
Account of Her Many Gross and Continued Defections (1716)
The title continues: "More particularly, her approving of, and going into
the legal establishment of the Prelatic constitutions of England. The
generality of ministers swearing, in the Oath of Abjuration, to maintain
Erastianism, Prelacy, and English Popish Ceremonies. Non-Jurants joining with
Jurants, judicially approving that practice to be free of scandal. The Church's
establishing tyranny in government, against all who will not join in communion
with her, and approve her practices without redress of grievances. Wherein
these and several other causes of withdrawing are proven to be justly
chargeable on the Church, demonstrated to be contrary to the Word of God and
Reformed principles of this Church, and just grounds of withdrawing, and
setting up judicatures distinct from her; and the objections of Jurants and
others fully answered." This is a classic, detailed statement of the old
covenanted principles and the biblical attainments of the second Reformation
(like the Solemn League and Covenant, the Westminster standards, etc.). It is
also an excellent defense against the modern malignants who counsel Christ's
children to remain in the backsliding and covenant breaking denominations that
abound in our day. Very Rare! 270 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-85%=14.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $24.00 (US funds)
Records of the Kirk of Scotland, Containing the Acts and
Proceedings of the Generals Assemblies, From the Year 1638 Downwards, As
Authenticated by the Clerks of Assembly; With Notes and Historical
Illustrations, by Alexander Peterkin (1838 edition)
"The object of the present work is to present to the public, in a form
that may be generally accessible, the history of one of the most interesting
periods in the annals of our National Church, by the republication of the Acts
and Proceedings, at and subsequent to the era of her second Reformation; and,
combined therewith, such historical documents and sketches as are calculated to
preserve the memory of an important, and, ultimately beneficial
revolution," notes Peterkin in his introduction. This is one the most
valuable publications we offer related to second Reformation history and the
many important questions that were debated (and oftentimes settled) during this
watershed period -- before, during and after the sitting of the Westminster
Assembly. It also contains some indispensable information on the
Protester/Resolutioner controversy (which reveals many valuable lessons for
Reformed Christians today), including excerpts from some lost books and papers
written by the Protesting Covenanters. The excerpts from James Guthrie's The
Waters of Sihor, or the Lands Defectione, in which Guthrie
enumerates the errors of the Resolutioners, as well as the marks of malignancy,
is one prime example. Other rare Protester documents (inveighing against the
"pretended Assemblies" of the Resolutioners), signed by the likes of
Samuel Rutherford and Robert Traill are also included. Very rare and very
valuable -- a gold mine for the serious student of the second Reformation! 684
pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-75%=24.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $34.00 (US funds)
Act, Declaration, And Testimony, For The Whole Of The
Covenanted Reformation, As Attained To, And Established In, Britain and
Ireland; Particularly Betwixt The Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive. As, Also,
Against All The Steps Of Defection From Said Reformation, Whether In Former Or
Later Times, Since The Overthrow Of That Glorious Work, Down To This Present
Day (1876)
Upholds the original work of the Westminster Assembly and testifies to the
abiding worth and truth formulated in the Westminster family of documents.
Upholds and defends the crown rights of King Jesus in church and state,
denouncing those who would remove the crown from Christ's head by denying His
right to rule (by His law) in both the civil and ecclesiastical spheres.
Testifies to the received doctrine, government, worship, and discipline of the
Church of Scotland in her purest (reforming) periods. Applies God's Word to the
Church's corporate attainments "with a judicial approbation of the earnest
contendings and attainments of the faithful, and a strong and pointed judicial
condemnation of error and the promoters thereof" (The Original
Covenanter and Contending Witness, Dec. 17/93, p. 558). Shows the
church's great historical victories (such as the National and Solemn League and
Covenant, leading to the Westminster Assembly) and exposes her enemies actions
(e.g. the Prelacy of Laud; the Independency, sectarianism, covenant breaking
and ungodly toleration set forth by the likes of Cromwell [and the Independents
that conspired with him]; the Erastianism and civil sectarianism of William of
Orange, etc.). It is not likely that you will find a more consistent working
out of the principles of Calvinism anywhere -- and fittingly this work has been
called "the most profoundly reasoned document ever issued by the (R.P.)
Church." It deals with the most important matters relating to the
individual, the family, the church and the state. Sets forth a faithful
historical testimony of God's dealings with men during some of the most
important days of church history. A basic text that should be mastered by all
Christians.
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)
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" newsletter). 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)
Various Official Acts, Declarations, Protestations, etc.,
Concerning the Covenanted Reformation
Contains 24 rare documents from the period 1638-1650. One document, "The
Act of Covenant Renovation" (1880) by the Reformed Presbytery (which was a
faithful renewal of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant
[adapted to the present time], with a confession of public sins), is added from
outside this period to illustrate the continuing obligations that rest upon the
moral person (civilly and ecclesiastically). Among the seventeenth century
documents we find much (from both the church and the state) that relates to the
central place that covenanting played in the second Reformation. We also find
various authoritative international testimonies against Popery, Prelacy and
Schism (i.e. Independency, Cromwell, etc.), and for biblical covenanted
uniformity, divine right Presbyterian church government, and apostolic worship.
Military documents related to the second Reformation are also added. One
proclamation by Charles I is even included, to illustrate Royalist opposition
to Reformation. 686 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-80%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $29.00 (US funds)
The Book of the Universal Kirk of Scotland
Contains the earliest official records (acts and proceedings) of the
Established Reformed Church in Scotland, covering the period from 1560 to 1616.
Peterkin calls them "the only sure and satisfactory memorials of the
course of Ecclesiastical affairs in the times immediately succeeding the
Reformation." Lee, Clerk of the General Assembly in 1828 writes (regarding
the originals), "there is no difficulty in proving that the volumes in
question were laid on the table of the General Assembly which met at Glasgow in
1638; and that they were pronounced by that Assembly to be true and authentic
Registers of the Kirk of Scotland." Concerning this copy of "The
Booke" ("for the first time fully printed from the copies in the
Advocates' Library"), Lee further states that these records exhibit,
"the real character of the internal government of this national church.
They display the operation of the principles by which the first Reformers and
their immediate successors were actuated. They demonstrate that these men were
not more distinguished by zeal for the truth, than by loyalty to the head of
the government, attachment to true principles, (I do not say of toleration--for
that was a term which they certainly did not employ or approve)--of religious
liberty and civil subordination. They bear testimony to the strictness and
impartiality of ancient discipline. They vindicate the character of those
illustrious men whose names have been unjustly aspersed, but who, both by their
doctrine and lives,--by their unwearied exertions and their patient
sufferings,--left an example, not indeed or faultless excellence, but assuredly
of the most noble, magnanimous, and fearless adherence to the standards of our
constitution. These Registers also contain much that is capable of correcting
erroneous representations of historical facts with regard to the internal state
of the kingdom-- institutions, habits, and customs, as well as the morals of
the people, and the spirit which was most prevalent at particular periods in
various districts of the land... they prove, that from the very first moment,
it was the determined object of the leaders of the Reformation, to establish
such a Presbyterian Government, as was at last, with the utmost difficulty
completed... they deserve to be preserved with care, as the most venerable
remnants of a distant age--as the earliest annuls of our infant church... of
confessors and martyrs, who counted not their lives dear to them; and who when
they thought it necessary, never shrunk from sealing their testimony with their
blood... (they) present the seal and superscription of glory to God, and good
will to man--peace to the church, and happiness to the state" (pp.
xi-xii). John Knox, the first name listed in the first record of the first
General Assembly (in 1560), of course, plays a prominent role in much of what
is recorded here. 631 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-80%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $29.00 (US funds)
Saul in the Cave
of Adullam: A Testimony Against the Fashionable Sub-Calvinism of Doug Wilson
(Editor of Credenda/Agenda
Magazine); and, for Classical Protestantism and the Attainments of the Second
Reformation by Reg Barrow
Doug Wilson and others at Credenda/Agenda used their magazine to
publicly attack and slander Reg Barrow (President of Still Waters Revival
Books) in a column that they call the "Cave of Adullam." This
invective was Credenda's response to
Barrow's comments on Knox Ring (where Barrow noted that John Calvin would have
excommunicated John Frame for the apostasy that he manifests in his new book on
worship). Numerous private attempts were unsuccessfully made (by Barrow and
others) to call Wilson to repentance for this slander. Ultimately, charges for
violation of the ninth commandment were brought (in accord with Matt. 18:15-17)
against Wilson by Barrow. This book recounts the salient points of the
controversy (and the Matthew 18 proceedings) between Wilson and Barrow -- in
their actual email debates! Also included is Barrow's demonstration of why
Calvin would have excommunicated Frame and Greg Price's Testimony
Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism.
These debates are a classic example of the differences that exist today
between paleopresbyterians (Barrow) and neopresbyterians (Wilson). Wilson's
charges against Barrow, of Anabaptism, separatism, etc. are all refuted under a
mountain of quotations from Reformation source documents. Barrow's refutations
of Wilson's spurious charges bring to light many aspects of Reformation thought
that have been lost or forgotten in our day. Besides the initial controversy
(over Frame and worship) and the restoration process (set forth in Matthew
18:15-17), this book should be of special interest to all of those who love the
"old paths" of truth -- trod by our forefathers in the Reformed faith
-- for some of the most pressing issues of our day (regarding the individual,
church and state) are addressed herein. Classic statements, cited by Barrow, not
only exhibit the wisdom which God granted the best Reformers of both the first
and second Reformations, but also specifically demonstrate how Wilson and many
other modern Protestants actually reject the Reformation at many points (all
their protests not withstanding). "And they that shall be of thee shall
build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many
generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer
of paths to dwell in" (Isa. 58:12). This item is also available as a bound
photocopy for $7.98 (US funds) or a Hardcover photocopy for $19.00 (US funds).
Why the PCA is
Not a Duly Constituted Church and Why Faithful Christians Should Separate from
this Corrupted "Communion" by Larry Birger
Two letters from Larry Birger, Jr. to the session of his former congregation in
the PCA, with an historical introduction. Birger states, "This work is
emitted by way of testimony against the defections from the reformation of the
true religion granted by God in ages past, in hopes of playing some small part
in the edification of God's people currently languishing under such defected
and defecting denominations." It spotlights the differences between
classic Presbyterian thought [paleopresbyterianism] and what today is but a
pale imitation [neopresbyterianism] of the Reformation attainments that have
been won [at the cost of much suffering and many lives] in the past. This is a
good practical introduction to ecclesiology, testimony-bearing, and second
Reformation thought.
A
Brief Defence of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances (1996)
This work explains why Christians should separate themselves from those
churches which deny biblical truth and its implications. It defends this
position using many Reformation source documents. Samuel Rutherford has been especially misunderstood concerning
separation. Examples of misleading and seriously flawed presentations of
Rutherford's position on the church and separation have been seen in Walker's The
Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750, Bacon's The
Visible Church and Outer Darkness and a
host of other works -- all of which overlook foundational second Reformation
truths set forth by Rutherford and his fellow Covenanters. This book clearly
demonstrates, from Rutherford's own actions and teaching (during the
Protester/Resolutioner controversy in the Scottish church), how far off many
previous works on this subject have been. It is the best short introduction
to questions regarding the visible church and separation which we list.
(Bound photocopy) $9.95-60%=3.98
"The
Reformed View of Schism"
The Reformers often said "that to avoid schism we must separate."
This should give the perceptive reader some indication of how badly
misunderstood the biblical teaching regarding schism and separation (which
should be differentiated in many ways) has become in our day. Sadly, some of
the most anti-Reformed work on this subject has been written by contemporary
individuals, who, though calling themselves Reformed, "understand neither
what they say, nor whereof they affirm" (1 Tim. 1:7). This excerpt from
Clarkson's Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting should contribute much to correcting the problem of
unbiblical ecumenism and place this doctrine (of biblical unity in the visible
church) back on its Scriptural foundation -- which was recovered during the
Reformation. Clarkson cites Beza, Rutherford, Gillespie, Dickson, Durham,
McWard (Rutherford's "disciple"), Marshal, Watson, Owen, Burroughs,
and many others, while defending the truth about schism. Objections brought
against the Reformation view of schism are also carefully answered. This is
probably the single best medium length treatment of this subject.)
Still Waters Revival Books
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5 Voice: (780) 450-3730
(Reformation resources at great discounts!) E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/ (Many free books here!)