Mr. Bacon writes:
However, because more modest means have not prevailed; because these men
desire not a dialogue but a
diatribe; because they have such a public profile and have since May of 1996
made their case in a public way, it has now become necessary for us to answer
their error in a public way (Defense Departed).
In as much as it has become a matter of public record (in Mr. Bacon's, A
Defence Departed) that the Puritan Reformed
Church of Edmonton allegedly has not availed itself of the "modest
means" employed by Mr. Bacon and several other men in order
to be reconciled to the Reformation Presbyterian Church, let it further become
a matter of public record (by the following correspondences) that by several
modest means the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton earnestly,
gently, and respectfully sought to address the significant issues that led to
their dissociation. The Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton made
several different suggestions in correspondences to the Reformation
Presbyterian Church as to how they might informally meet together in order to
discuss the reasons for their dissociation, but not once did they receive any
correspondence from the Reformation Presbyterian Church stating a willingness
to meet with them
informally (to the contrary, all that the PRCE received were threats of
censure for contumacy from the Reformation Presbyterian Church if they refused
to appear as cited).
In effect, the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton was told
that the only way the Reformation Presbyterian Church would meet with them was
if they officially appeared before their court (thus compelling the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton to recognize the lawful jurisdiction of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church which was the very point at issue). Although
the Session of the PRCE was cited to appear officially in the courts of the RPC
and threatened with censure for contumacy if they did not appear (Note:
contumacy is an obstinate resistance to lawful authority), the Puritan Reformed
Church of Edmonton attempted to explain respectfully in its correspondence that
their unwillingness to accede to these "citations" was not
contumacious, but rather conscientious
(i.e. it was not due to a rebellious spirit against God or any lawful court,
but rather it was due to a submissive conscience to God and His Word).
Furthermore, let the reader observe that the letters sent to the Reformation
Presbyterian Church by the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton contain sincere
entreaties and earnest pleas that the Reformation Presbyterian Church might
agree to meet with the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton in an unofficial
setting in order to discuss any and all issues related to their dissociation
and in order to pursue a faithful reconciliation in the truth. Such an informal
meeting required neither the Reformation Presbyterian Church nor the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton to acknowledge either the lawfulness of one
another's courts or the legitimacy of actions taken by either side. Is it a
spirit of contumacy when one declares his sincere desire to talk with brethren (in
order to be reconciled in the truth), but only desires that brethren accede to
one request for the sake of conscience? "Brethren, let us meet
informally."
In the correspondence published on First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett's
web page, Pastor Price writes (October 19,1996):
Brother, here we reach an impasse. For you maintain that we must recognize your jurisdiction and compear before your courts which is to (sic) in effect to declare our dissociation to be sinful. We maintain that we cannot recognize your courts until we have settled certain issues that led to our dissociation. Thus, we cannot discuss our dissociation apart from the matters of truth and conscience that led to our dissociation. If I might paraphrase the problem: You want us to make null and void our dissociation and begin by admitting our sin in that matter by compearing before your courts; whereas we want to begin by discussing in an informal forum the reasons which led to our dissociation. Dick, we can no more concede to this request, than our protesting forefathers would acquiesce to the demands of the Resolutioner Assemblies to compear before their pretended courts. If you maintain the only way to resolve these issues is first to appear before you and confess our sin, then we will never get to the matters that led to our dissociation.
Mr. Bacon refuses an informal face to face meeting with the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton.
Mr. Bacon responds (October 20, 1996):
Yes, and I also could not in good conscience concede to your request. So in what way do you think things will change by having a coffeeklatch type meeting? I do not see that as a solution.
Why wouldn't Mr. Bacon talk to us informally? We simply asked for a face to
face context in which we could explain our dissociation and carefully listen to
any objections made? How would this violate Mr. Bacon's conscience?
While Mr. Bacon very forthrightly declares how meeting together with the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton is against his conscience, he shows his
double standard and his lack of concern for our case of conscience when he
sinfully says:
By the same token, if they [the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton GB]
believed their position to be
true regardless of the state of their conscience, they could have brought an
overture to the Reformation Presbyterian Church (Defense Departed, emphases added).
Woe unto the world because of
offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom
the offence cometh (Matthew 18:7, AV).
How can Mr. Bacon say we should have overtured the Presbytery
"regardless of the state of our conscience?" What faithful minister
counsels people to act, "regardless of the state of their
conscience?" Should we do evil that good may come? This clearly shows how
far Mr. Bacon is willing to go in order to avoid any attempt at reconciliation
except on his terms and in submission to his authority. This, again, is a sad
commentary on the credibility of his counsel and his integrity as a minister.
And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men (Acts 24:16, AV).
While the Scripture clearly teaches us not to do evil that good may come, we
ask where the Scripture teaches that the men of the pretended presbytery of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church were required to speak with us only in the
official context of a judicatory? Mr. Bacon, in saying that he could not in
good conscience concede to our request, needs to produce a scriptural reason
(and perhaps an historical reason would be helpful as well) for his case of
conscience. He needs to demonstrate where the Scripture teaches that brethren
should not informally meet together as individuals for the purpose of
reconciling differences. This we are certain he could never do since we know
that the Word of God teaches that we must be ready and willing to reconcile
with any offended brother who is willing to meet with us.
Matthew Henry comments:
If a professed Christian is wronged by another, he ought not to complain of it to others, as is often done merely upon report, but to go to the offender privately, state the matter kindly, and show him his conduct. This would generally have all the desired effect with a true Christian, and the parties would be reconciled. The principles of these rules may be practised every where, and under all circumstances, though they are too much neglected by all. But how few try the method which Christ has expressly enjoined to all his disciples! In all our proceedings we should seek direction in prayer; we cannot too highly prize the promises of God. Wherever and whenever we meet in the name of Christ, we should consider him as present in the midst of us (Matthew Henry Commentary on Matt. 18:15, emphases added).
Furthermore, Mr. Bacon says it would be against his conscience to meet with
us in what he terms, a "coffeeklatch type meeting." This is to
disparage the reconciliation process before it has even begun. If anyone, even
those who will not recognize our church court, should wish to reconcile a matter
of offence with us, we should meet with them privately and endeavor to begin
the process of reconciliation. How can we start the process if we refuse to
meet?
Furthermore, Mr. Bacon says:
First, it is our intention by making the correspondence between the PRCE and other members of the Reformation Presbyterian Church and its churches public, to demonstrate that we have, in fact, made use of more private and modest means of reconciliation. We will leave it to the reader to determine for himself if the PRCE session has been reasonable or easily entreated (Defense Departed).
Since Mr. Bacon desires the reader "to determine for himself if the
PRCE session has been reasonable or easily entreated" (Defence Departed), why did he not give to the reader particular
public communications that passed between the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton and the Reformation Presbyterian Church? The reason is obvious it is
because these public correspondences are so damaging to the case he wishes to
make (i.e. the slanderous allegations he has made concerning the socalled
obstinacy exhibited by the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton).
The Reformation Presbyterian Church (in its correspondence with the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton) desired to address first the way in which the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton dissociated (and the reasons subsequently),
whereas the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton desired to
address first the reasons for their dissociation (and the way subsequently).
The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton argued that the only means by which one
can know whether the way in which they dissociated was lawful, was to know
first whether the reasons for which they dissociated were lawful. If the
reasons for dissociation proved groundless, then the way would likewise prove
groundless. However, if the reasons for dissociation were warranted by biblical
and historical testimony, then the way in which they dissociated would likewise
prove warranted. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton realized that if they
officially appeared in the court of the Reformation Presbyterian Church and
thereby recognized their lawful jurisdiction, they would by their actions deny
the very biblical and constitutional principles that led to their dissociation.
"Give up your principles and your conscience, confess that you sinned in
the way that you dissociated, and then we may meet together" was the
message coming from the Reformation Presbyterian Church. The Session of the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton responded, "We long to be reconciled
in the truth, and we are willing to meet in any informal setting possible in
order to discuss both the reasons and the means of our dissociation, but to ask
us to lay down our biblical and constitutional principles or offer our
conscience on the altar of compromise is unreasonable that we can never
do!"
The Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton argued that the
Reformation Presbyterian Church was not a lawful court of Jesus Christ, and
therefore no other resort remained to the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
except to dissociate. It is again worthy of note that of the four original
ministers who identified themselves with the Reformation Presbyterian Church
(Mr. Bacon, Mr. Robinson, Dr. Crick, and Mr. Price), three of them (Mr.
Robinson, Dr. Crick, and Mr. Price) concluded that the Reformation Presbyterian
Church was not a lawfully constituted court of Jesus Christ (each of these
three ministers subsequently dissociated see Appendix B). Of the three original
ruling elders serving on Sessions identified with the Reformation Presbyterian
Church (Mr. Seekamp, Mr. G. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms), two of them (Mr. G. Barrow
and Mr. Dohms) concluded that the Reformation Presbyterian Church was not a
lawfully constituted court of Jesus Christ (each of these two ruling elders
subsequently dissociated). After the dissociation of the three ministers and
two ruling elders mentioned above, the Reformation Presbyterian Church was left
with one minister (Mr. Bacon), one ruling elder (Mr. Seekamp), and one Session
(First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett). Although the mere number of men that
dissociated from the Reformation Presbyterian Church does not in and of itself
determine the lawfulness of their reasons, it should drive the cautious reader
to explore the reasons why such a vast
majority of these men dissociated.
If the Reformation Presbyterian Church sincerely cared for the souls of the
Session and Congregation of the Puritan Reformed Church Edmonton (believing
they had fallen into some serious schismatic error), why would the Reformation
Presbyterian Church not agree to meet with the Session of the Puritan Reformed
Church of Edmonton in an informal setting (whereby their consciences before God
and His Word would not be violated) in order to convince them of their error
and in order to reclaim them to Christ? Is that using authority for the purpose
of edification (even conceding for the sake of argument that the authority of
the Reformation Presbyterian Church was lawful)? Is it being easily entreated
not to concede to a sincere request to meet with brothers in an informal
setting so as to avoid offence of conscience before God and His Word? Is it seeking
to restore brethren in a spirit of gentleness when earnest pleas are made to
meet in an informal setting and all that is received in return is a threat of
censure for contumacy?
It should also be interjected that it was not Mr. Bacon who first initiated
personal correspondence to be reconciled with the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton, but rather the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton (through Mr.
Price) who first initiated personal correspondence with Mr. Bacon (Oct.18,
1996) with prayerful anticipation that such correspondence might lead to a
reconciliation between brothers in Christ. It was the express desire of the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton to use modest means by which to be
reconciled in the truth with the Reformation Presbyterian Church. It should
also be noted that it was Mr. Price who last corresponded with Mr. Bacon
(January9, 1997) and that it was Mr. Bacon who ended the personal
correspondence with Mr. Price just as some of the significant issues that
divided them were being addressed. Mr.
Bacon never gave to Mr. Price a reason why he abruptly ended his correspondence
(although Mr. Bacon subsequently published on his web page that it was
allegedly due to Dr. Crick and Pastor Robinson speaking with the PRCE). Those
who have read Appendix B will readily see that neither Dr. Crick, nor Pastor
Robinson, needed the PRCE to convince them that a lawful vow was never taken to
constitute the RPC presbytery. The facts and events surrounding the alleged vow
speak so clearly for themselves that everyone present at that meeting (except
the Rowlett Session of course) has independently concluded that Mr. Bacon and
Mr. Seekamp have misrepresented the matter.
The reader is invited to read the following correspondence which passed
between Mr. Price and Mr. Bacon and to judge for himself whether Mr. Price was
obstinate or whether Mr. Price was respectfully pursuing reconciliation in the
truth. Let the reader judge whether it was right for Mr. Bacon to refuse a
meeting of all the ministers and elders when the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton continually offered to clear our differences. More modest means did
not prevail because Mr. Bacon was not willing to use more modest means. What more modest means could have been proposed,
under the circumstances, than to meet together informally as brothers in order
to discuss the matters related to the recent dissociation? Mr. Bacon says that
he refused to do this because he didn't see what such "a coffeeklatch
meeting" would accomplish. Perhaps he would have been proved right, but
the fact is that the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton was willing to try,
but (as the evidence clearly demonstrates) he was not. Offers from the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton to meet face to face have always been and continue to be open. For Mr.
Bacon to accuse the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton of
rejecting modest means of reconciliation is a slanderous lie. The evidence is
clear and simple. The Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
offered to meet informally with the Reformation Presbyterian Church, and Mr.
Bacon said, "No." No amount of lying or misrepresentation can cover
up that fact.
Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour (Ecclesiastes 10:1, AV).
Let the reader judge for himself from the correspondences that follow who
evidenced and displayed modest means of reconciliation and a spirit of
gentleness in their communications.
Letter #1 April 13, 1996, from Mr. Seekamp (Stated Clerk of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church) to the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton. The biblical and historical reasons for the
nonattendance of the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton at this
meeting of the Reformation Presbyterian Church had been communicated to them
prior to this meeting of Presbytery. It was made clear that nonattendance was
not due to personal issues at all, but only due to matters of conscience
related to biblical and constitutional principles. Furthermore, an earnest plea
and desire for reconciliation in the truth had been communicated to the
Reformation Presbyterian Church in the letter of dissociation sent by the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton. This was the first response received by
the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton from the Reformation Presbyterian
Church subsequent to their dissociation. In this first official communication
from the Reformation Presbyterian Church already the charge of contumacy is
laid upon the table.
From: Dave Seekamp
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 1996 11:01 PM
To: 'prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'; 'lwdohms@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'
Cc: 'dbacon@airmail.net'; 'scotkirk@aol.com'; 'TWorrell l@aol.com'
Subject: 2nd Notice to Appear before the Presbytery
Dear Edmonton Session members,
As Clerk, I have been asked to convey the following message to you. Here is
the official action of presbytery from the meeting held 4/6/96.
It was moved and seconded that in light of the Edmonton session's nonappearance
at the presbytery meeting, that we cite them a second time to appear. This
meeting is to occur in Charlotte, NC on June 22, 1996 to convene at 9:00 AM. If
they do not appear at this meeting charges of contumacy will be filed against
them.
The motion passed without opposition.
In view of this motion, the Edmonton session is cited the second time to
appear before the Presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church on June 22,
1996 at 9:00 AM. We will notify you of the exact location in Charlotte, NC as
soon as this is determined.
The reasons for appearing are as formerly stated: "..the Edmonton
session is summoned to appear to personally explain the rationale for, and
consequences of, their recent adoption of the Covenants, National and Solemn
League, in addition to, the Terms of Communion as set down in the RPC North
Britain of 1761".
Additionally, during the presbytery meeting held 4/6/96, it was moved,
"that we remind Elder Greg Barrow of his duty to keep the Presbytery
informed about his progress as a man under care". Please consider this
memo as a reminder directed to Elder Barrow and forward this communication to
him.
Please notify us upon receipt of this mail.
For Christ's Kingdom and glory,
David Seekamp
Clerk of Presbytery
Reformed Presbyterian Church
Letter #2 April 20, 1996, from the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
to Mr. Seekamp (Stated Clerk of the Reformation Presbyterian Church). This is the first response of the Session of the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton to the citation and threatened charge of
contumacy issued by the Reformation Presbyterian Church. Let the reader compare
both the tone and the modest means used in the public correspondence of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church and that of the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:22:16 0600
From: prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: /u/010/prcedm/mail/Notice
Mr. David Seekamp
The Clerk of Presbytery
The Reformation Presbyterian Church
April 18, 1996
Dear Brethren,
We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence (dated April 15, 1996)
concerning "a second notice to appear before the Presbytery." We
request that the clerk please provide us with minutes from the most recent
meeting of the Presbytery as soon as he is able.
The motion passed by the Presbytery ("It was moved and seconded that in
light of the Edmonton session's nonappearance at the presbytery meeting, that
we cite them a second time to appear. This meeting is to occur in Charlotte, NC
on June 22, 1996 to convene at 9:00 AM. If they do not appear at this meeting
charges of contumacy will be filed against them.") begs the very question
which this session has already put to the Presbytery in our correspondence of
March 27, 1996: Is the Reformation Presbyterian Church a duly constituted court
of Jesus Christ? Not only have we maintained that the constitution of The
Reformation Presbyterian Church is unfaithful to the terms of communion
established by our covenanted and presbyterian forefathers of The Second Reformation
(cf. our correspondence of March 27, 1996), but we also maintain that The
Reformation Presbyterian Church is not duly constituted for the fundamental
reason that no formal vows have yet been taken by officers of The Reformation
Presbyterian Church to any constitution. Certain subordinate standards and a
subscription statement have been adopted by The Reformation Presbyterian
Church, but no formal vows have yet been publicly taken by any officer in
owning these as subordinate standards. Churches that profess to be reformed
have universally maintained that a binding union is established between a
church officer and a church when he publicly promises (vows) and owns the
constitution of the church before witnesses. This is even required by A MANUAL
OF THE PRACTICE OF THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (pp. 123127). This
formed the reason why The Reformation Presbyterian Church at its meeting of
July 22, 1995 in Snellville, Georgia rightly chose not to censure Mr. John
Cripps for breaking any vows, for he had not broken any formal vows which
constitutionally bound him to The Reformation Presbyterian Church. Thus,
brethren, if you maintain that you are lawfully constituted, we request the
Presbytery to produce from the minutes of presbytery formal vows which any
officer has taken to the constitution of The Reformation Presbyterian Church
(as distinguished from motions which only adopt certain documents as
subordinate standards of The Reformation Presbyterian Church).
Brethren, until you present us with answers to these constitutional
questions, we cannot own you as a duly constituted court of the Lord Jesus
Christ. For these reasons we have necessarily declined the jurisdiction of The
Reformation Presbyterian Church. We are not acting from a spirit of contumacy
at all, but from a biblical and historical necessity to establish duly
constituted order and authority within a church court before it can lawfully
rule on behalf of Christ. Therefore, we believe the Presbytery cannot lawfully
(de jure) cite us to appear before it as
a true church court (even if it does so de facto), nor can it lawfully charge
us with contumacy if it be not a lawfully constituted church court. We plead
with the Presbytery to answer these questions. We do not desire to remain separated
from you brethren. The issue of a duly constituted authority cannot be avoided.
Furthermore, we have made known our willingness to discuss these matters
with the Presbytery. In our email correspondence to the Presbytery (March 27,
1996), we stated this to be our desire, and in phone conversations with the
Presbytery through the Moderator before the last Presbytery meeting, we assured
the Presbytery of our willingness to meet with them via conference call. We
waited to see if the Presbytery desired to meet with us, but we received no
communication to that effect. Though unable to afford the expense of flying our
entire session to Rowlett, we willingly consented to appear before the
Presbytery by conference call to discuss our actions. Thus, we did not wilfully
refuse to "appear" before the Presbytery on even the first occasion.
Concerning "the second notice" to appear, we request that the venue
of the meeting be changed to Edmonton since we have borne a greater financial
burden in previous meetings due to the greater distance we have had to travel.
If the Presbytery should yet choose to meet in Charlotte, NC, we must decline
appearing personally at that meeting (for financial considerations), though we
would yet be willing to consider the possibility of a conference call on that
date. We do not consider our nonappearance at these meetings for financial
reasons to be the result of contumacy on our parts. Such a trip for our entire
session would cost us in the vicinity of $3,000 (Canadian). Our church budget
will not permit such an expenditure. So you see, brethren, we are not refusing
to discuss these issues with you, nor are we refusing to meet with you. Please
seriously consider our request for a change of venue if you desire to meet with
us personally, or consider a conference call on June 22 if you desire to
discuss these matters with us at that time in Charlotte.
We acknowledge as well that we have received the Presbytery's motion (of
4/6/96) "that we remind Elder Greg Barrow of his duty to keep the
Presbytery informed about his progress as a man under care." Brethren,
since we have declined the jurisdiction of The Reformation Presbyterian Church
due to its absence of duly constituted authority as a church court, we must
maintain that Mr. Barrow was never under care of a truly constituted
Presbytery. We implore you to join with us in establishing a duly constituted
Presbytery that is agreeable to the Word of God and to the standards of our
covenanted and presbyterian forefathers of The Second Reformation. To that end
shall we continue to work and pray.
For Christ's Crown And Covenant,
The Session of Puritan Reformed Church
Letter #3 April 23, 1996, from Mr. Seekamp (Stated Clerk of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church to the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton.
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 07:49:10 0700
From: Dave Seekamp <davese@MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'"
<prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>, "'<lwdohms@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>'"
<lwdohms@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
Cc: 'Richard Bacon' <dbacon@airmail.net>, 'Jerry Crick'
<scotkirk@aol.com>, 'Tim Worrell ' <TWorrell l@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Response to Second Notice from Presbytery
Dear Pastor Price and Edmonton Session,
As Clerk, I acknowledge the receipt of your correspondence. Your response
will become part of the records of the case. I will be forwarding a copy of
your correspondence to Pastor Robinson since he is not on email.
A full copy of the minutes from the April presbytery meeting will be mailed
out very soon.
In the Lord's Name,
Dave Seekamp
Letter #4 May 13, 1996, from Mr. Seekamp (Stated Clerk of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church) to the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton. In this letter Mr. Seekamp makes certain
allegations against the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church for which (to
his credit) he subsequently repented and was forgiven. Thus, this letter and
the following one are only included to give a faithful transmission of public
correspondence that passed between the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton and
the Reformation Presbyterian Church.
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 17:57:53 0700
From: Dave Seekamp <davese@MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'"
<prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>, "'lwdohms@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'"
<lwdohms@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
Cc: "'dbacon@airmail.net'" <dbacon@airmail.net>,
"'scotkirk@aol.com'" <scotkirk@aol.com>, "'TWorrell
l@aol.com'" <TWorrell l@aol.com>
Subject: RE:2nd Notice to Appear before the Presbytery
Dear Edmonton Session:
This is an official response to you from the Clerk of the Presbytery. The
previous notice will be mailed to you by certified letter and will constitute
the 2nd notice to appear according to our book of order adopted at the last
meeting of Presbytery: A Manual of the practice of the Free Presbyterian Church
of Scotland.
The place of meeting, date and time of the meeting remain the same as in the
previous communication:
With reference to the cost considerations, this was never an issue as long
while you were committed to the Presbytery. Speaking for the Presbytery (I may
be overruled when we convene), we may be willing to provide financial
assistance under the following conditions:
1) If you're purpose is to come and repent, recognizing your vow breaking
with us by your disassociation, then some kind of financial assistance might be
possible. Otherwise, you need to pay your own expenses. We are not interested
in financing a pattern of vow breaking with respect to vows made before the Lord.
Please send me email if this is your purpose for attending.
2) Also, it is necessary that you make your reservations within the next 4
days of the receipt of this letter in order to get the lowest fares possible.
Considering the appraisal of the costs, you should find something for
substantially less than a $1000. Pastor Bacon found tickets (at the time of
your previous response) for less than $600 round trip with one connection
through a travel agency.
It is not necessary for all the members of your session to appear. Your
church is entitled to one vote in presbytery according to our book of order. If
the church has a pastor, he also has a vote as a member of Presbytery. However,
neither are able to vote in their own case. As a member of presbytery, Pastor
Price's attendance is required. Believing in representative government as we
do, one or more members of your session can represent the other session members
before presbytery.
Best regards in the Lord's name,
David Seekamp
Clerk of Presbytery
Letter #5 June 19, 1996, from the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
to Mr. Seekamp (Stated Clerk of the Reformation Presbyterian Church). Especially note the reference made to the many
brotherly attempts initiated on the part of the Puritan Reformed Church to
speak with the men of the Reformation Presbyterian Church concerning
reconciliation. Where were the attempts on the part of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church to use modest means to be reconciled to the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:43:35 0600
From: prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: /u/010/prcedm/mail/seekamp2
To: The Reformation Presbyterian Church
David Seekamp, Clerk of Presbytery
June 19, 1996
From: The Session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
Dear Brethren,
In light of your upcoming meeting of Presbytery (June 2122, 1996) in
Charlotte, NC, we believe it would be advantageous to address several matters
that have been communicated to us from members of presbytery since your last
meeting (April 6, 1996) in Rowlette, TX.
1. We have been cited a second time to appear before presbytery, and if we
do not appear we will be charged with contumacy. As we made clear in our
communication to presbytery by email (April 18, 1996), we have been willing to
address the issues related to our dissociation and continue to be willing to do
so. This fact is established by our communications with presbytery via the
moderator before the last presbytery meeting in Rowlette (April 6, 1996),
wherein we agreed to meet with presbytery by means of conference call. We
understood this would be acceptable to presbytery since Dr. Crick would be
attending that meeting of presbytery by means of conference call as well.
However, we were not contacted to set up a conference call. Why were we not
contacted? Contumacy implies an obstinate refusal to hear or listen. For the
record, we were willing then to speak with you, and are still willing to do so.
Our willingness to address the matters of our dissociation is further evidenced
by the number of phone calls (approximately 8) we have made to members of
presbytery. Would you honestly accuse us of obstinately refusing to talk with
you? Since presbytery has not initiated a single phone call with us, has the
presbytery demonstrated as much willingness to talk with us as we have with
them? If presbytery sincerely views our session as having been led astray,
where is presbytery's willingness to talk with us by conference call so as to
lead us back into the paths of righteousness?
2. In a recent email communication (May 13, 1996) from presbytery via the
clerk, it was stated, *This is an official response to you from the Clerk of
the Presbytery. . . . Speaking for the Presbytery (I may be overruled when we
convene), we may be willing to provide financial assistance under the following
conditions: (1) If you're (sic) purpose is to come to repent . . . .* We call
the presbytery's attention to the fact that the presbytery has not yet charged
us with a sin for which to repent. This appears to us to be a case of having
been found guilty by presbytery before even having been charged with a specific
sin (a violation of the ninth commandment or any faithful book of church
order). Upon your supposition that we are yet members of presbytery, is this
proceeding by due process of law?
3. One of our stated reasons for not appearing in person before the members
of presbytery (namely, our present financial circumstances), appears to be
dismissed by presbytery via the clerk (in an official presbytery communication
by email, dated May 13, 1996) as either irrelevant or fabricated since *this
was never an issue as long while (sic) you were committed to the Presbytery.*
As a matter of record, we asked the presbytery to consider meeting in Edmonton
in an official communication (dated March 8, 1996) and in unofficial
communications (both verbal and email). We have discussed this as one of the
significant issues for not attending the meeting at Rowlette and Charlotte in
recent session meetings as well. In all previous meetings of presbytery, our
representatives have travelled by far the furthest distance and have incurred
the most significant costs. Since presbytery has no evidence to the contrary,
why does presbytery cast doubt upon our testimony as if it were spurious? If evidence
to the contrary is available, please provide such evidence.
4. The presbytery apparently refuses to accept our willingness to meet with
them by conference call, and yet it agreed to have Dr. Crick attend the last
meeting of presbytery by conference call. We were cited for not appearing
because we did not appear in person. Did Dr. Crick appear in person at the last
meeting of presbytery? This appears to us to be an inconsistency. Why is Dr.
Crick's excuse acceptable and ours unacceptable?
5. Does presbytery have unanimity amongst itself as to when individuals were
constituted as members of presbytery by virtue of public and formal vows? Were
formal vows to be united as members of presbytery taken at the first meeting of
presbytery (October 1, 1994), or the second meeting (February 25, 1995), or the
third meeting (July 22, 1995), or the fourth meeting (April 6, 1996), or were
they taken on any previous occasion? We have received a diversity of opinion
from the members of presbytery to such a simple question? Such should not be
the case if the answer is so clear. This is our reason for not officially
recognizing the constituted authority of presbytery to cite us to appear before
it. Beyond the matters related to our differences in terms of communion, we
wish to communicate to you that at no time in the process of determining the
wording of our form of subscription did we conceive or in any way understand
that we were taking formal vows. We can only ask that you believe our sincere
testimony. Can you cite for us any presbyterian body that was constituted
implicitly without formal vows?
6. Our session would propose that we meet as brothers in a neutral location
(such as Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, or Calgary) to informally discuss our
differences. Due to the difference that exists in our terms of communion, we
cannot in good conscience meet together formally in the context of a church
court. If the conference call arrangement is not acceptable to presbytery, we
ask presbytery to meet with us in person at a location that will considerably
minimize our expenses.
We do pray that you will seriously consider the matters we have raised at
your meeting in Charlotte, NC, June 2122, 1996. We do love you as fellow
brethren in Christ and do pray that there might yet be a reconciliation of
significant issues that presently separate us.
Respectfully,
The Session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
P.S. Since the moderator cannot receive this communication by email, please
see that he receives a copy. Please confirm that you have received this
communication.
Letter #6 June 20, 1996, from Mr. Seekamp (Stated Clerk of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church) to the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton.
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:10:08 0700
From: Dave Seekamp <davese@MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'"
<prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
Cc: 'Richard Bacon' <dbacon@airmail.net>, 'Jerry Crick'
<scotkirk@aol.com>, 'Tim Worrell ' <TWorrell l@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Presbytery/Charlotte
Your communication has been received. I will suggest that the Presbytery as
a whole should answer the points you have raised.
Letter #7 October 18,1996, from Mr. Price (Pastor of the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton) to Mr. Bacon (Pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church of Rowlett). This was an earnest
attempt initiated on the part of the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton to continue to seek reconciliation with Mr. Bacon. There intervened a
series of communications between Mr. Price and Mr. Bacon which were abruptly
ended (for no stated reason at that time) by Mr. Bacon (January 9, 1997, cf.
the communication below).
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 17:42:01 0600 (MDT)
From: prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
To: Richard Bacon <dbacon@airmail.net>
Subject: Request To Dialogue
Dear Dick,
Members of our session have communicated with other members of The
Reformation Presbyterian Church in the past several months. However, we have
not corresponded directly with you or your session. I would like to know if you
would be interested in engaging in a dialogue with me concerning any matters
related to our dissociation, or matters related to our convictions concerning
church or state? As we have expressed in writing and in verbal communication,
so I emphasize again: We do desire to be reconciled together as one body again.
However, the conscientious reasons for
our necessary dissociation must first be addressed. If you are interested, you
may begin by stating your question, observation, conviction etc. I hope to hear
from you soon.
Respectfully,
Greg L. Price
Letter # 8 November 23, 1996.
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:27:27 0800
From: Dave Seekamp <davese@MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'dbacon@airmail.net'" <dbacon@airmail.net>,
"'scotkirk@aol.com'" <scotkirk@aol.com>, "'prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca'"
<prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>, 'Greg Barrow'
<gbarrow@portal.connect.ab.ca>, 'Lyndon Dohms'
<lwdohms@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>, 'Tim Worrell l' <TWorrell
l@aol.com>
Subject: Called and Ordinary Meetings of Presbytery
Dear Fathers and Brethren,
The moderator has announced a called meeting of Presbytery on Saturday,
December 7, 1996 to be convened at 11:00 AM in Rowlett, Texas at the First
Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, 8210 Schrade, Rowlett, Texas.
The stated purpose of this pro ra nata meeting is to consider the
Petition received from Elder Seekamp and reports that have been circulated
regarding the character of Pastor Bacon.
The ordinary Fall meeting of Presbytery will be on Saturday, January 26,
1997 to convene at 9:00 AM. This meeting will be held in Simpsonville, SC at
the Scottish Presbyterian Kirk of the Covenant, 119 Woodcliff Court,
Simpsonville, SC. More details will be distributed regarding this meeting very
shortly [emphases added GB].
Best regards in the Lord,
David Seekamp
Clerk of Presbytery
Letter #9 December 3, 1996, from Mr. Price (Pastor of the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton) to Mr. Bacon (Pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church of Rowlett) and Mr. Seekamp (Clerk of Session of the First Presbyterian
Church of Rowlett). The following personal
note was issued by Mr. Price upon receiving a communication from Mr. Seekamp
(cited above Letter #8) concerning a call to a special meeting of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church to be held in Rowlett, Texas in order to
address reports concerning problems within the Rowlett congregation. Is this
the correspondence of one who does not care to use modest means in order to be
reconciled with brethren? What more (short of ignoring our conscience) could
have been done to demonstrate our sincere desire for reconciliation?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:07:51 0700 (MST)
From: prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
To: Richard Bacon <dbacon@airmail.net>, David Seekamp
<davese@Microsoft.com>
Subject: Prayer
Dear Brothers,
I wanted you to know that neither myself nor our session takes delight at
what we have read concerning the grievous situation in Rowlett. To the
contrary, our hearts are grieved. We do not bear you any animosity. We have
sought (by God's grace) to prevent a root of bitterness from springing up in
our hearts, so that we might yet be reconciled to you, our brothers. Our
concerns are yet of a theological nature, and not of a personal nature. Please
know that sincere prayers for a righteous settlement of the problems in both church
and family are offered up on your behalf [emphases
added GB].
The God of our fathers be with you,
Greg
Letter #10 January 9, 1997, from Mr. Price (Pastor of the Puritan
Reformed Church of Edmonton) to Mr. Bacon (Pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church of Rowlett). This is the final
personal correspondence between Mr. Price and Mr. Bacon. The series of
communications between Mr. Price and Mr. Bacon (which had been initiated by Mr.
Price) were abruptly ended (for no stated reason at that time) by Mr. Bacon.
Several months later, the web page for the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett
posted that the reason Mr. Bacon ended his personal correspondence with Mr.
Price was due to the continued contact between the PRCE and the other ministers
of the RPC. This communication has been included in order that the reader may
see for himself that there was exhibited no spirit of obstinacy by Mr. Price,
but there difficult questions proposed by Mr. Price for which Mr. Bacon
provided no answer at the time nor since.
Note: the headings and dates to all of the following correspondence are
supplied by Greg Barrow to assist the reader.
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:44:15 0700 (MST)
From: prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
To: Richard Bacon <dbacon@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue (fwd)
Dick,
We are finally getting settled in
from our move and hope I will be able to reply to email messages more
regularly.
Mr. Price wrote from a previous letter (121896):
The problem we faced was one in which we had come to firm convictions that the terms of communion in the Reformation Presbyterian Church were contrary to the biblical and covenanted reformation as attained to in the Church of Scotland (16381649). We then realized the Reformation Presbyterian Church was not rightly constituted by virtue of what I just mentioned as well as by virtue of not having formally taken vows as church officers. We yet believe we acted appropriately in dissociating ourselves and then calling the Reformation Presbyterian Church to repentance in light of the unconstituted establishment of the Reformation Presbyterian Church.
Mr. Bacon responded in a previous letter (121996):
That was NOT the problem you wrote to us about in February (nor earlier still in December). You did not express that this was a case of conscience at that time and in fact as late as February continued to assure me that separation was NOT on your agenda.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
It was not a case of conscience until March. When it became a case of conscience we wrote to you explaining our reasons for dissociation. The reason separation never came up in our email correspondence in December or February was because we were not considering it at that point in time.
Mr. Bacon writes in a previous letter (121996):
In your opinion, the RPC was not rightly constituted prior to March of 1995 [1996 GB]. So, please explain what irremedial position the the RPC had taken that prohibited your calling the presbytery to repentance prior to your departure?
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
We never indicated that the situation in the RPC was *irremedial.* We stated we could not be apart of a *pretended* presbytery which had not been lawfully constituted and whose terms of communion were contrary to our own. We have always maintained that our dissociation from the RPC could be remedied if the constitutional issues and terms of communion were resolved.
Mr. Price writes in a previous letter (121896) concerning the wording
of the subscription statement:
It is true that we sinfully agreed to accept the statement to which you refer above. We have repented of our sin and have asked the Reformation Presbyterian Church and the Puritan Reformed Church to forgive us for agreeing to what we now believe to have been perjury on our parts in disowning the SLC [Solemn League and Covenant GB]. What did you precisely understand the following statement to mean: "It is not necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms"? This seems to be one of the most significant issues that separates us. We (the session of Edmonton) understood that we were abjuring the Solemn League and Covenant as not obligating us (as did Bruce Robinson). Can you explicitly explain whether you believe the Solemn League and Covenant is perpetually binding upon posterity (and if you believe it is, what aspects of the covenant bind posterity?). Are only bloodline descendants bound? Are any nations today bound by the SLC? Are any churches so bound?
Mr. Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
The very fact that you are using such terms as "sin and repentance" indicate that you regard the SL&C as the rule of faith and conscience. "Not necessary" means that God alone is Lord of the conscience. I do not have Bruce Robinson's testimony as to "what" he understood. If he so understood it as you do, then why did he not leave the presbytery at the same time you did? Why has he not communicated to the presbytery?
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
We do not regard either the National Covenant (NC) or the Solemn League and Covenant (SL&C) as *the rule of faith and conscience.* We do regard these covenants as subordinate standards that are agreeable to the Word of God which is "the only infallible rule of faith and practice." Thus, because these covenants (and all the standards emitted by the Westminster Assembly) are agreeable to the Word, approved by a lawful General Assembly, and specifically bind the ecclesiastical and national descendants of Scottish, English, and Irish Presbyterianism, we're bound to them.
Dick, was it necessary to subscribe the Westminster Confession of Faith? Why was it necessary to subscribe the WCF but not the SL&C? Was it necessary for Rutherford, Gillespie, or Brown to swear these covenants? To say that it is necessary to take these covenants (or the WCF), or to say that it is sinful not to take these covenants is not to make them our infallible rule of faith and practice, nor is it to deny sola scriptura (if such were the case we would condemn both the first and second reformation for the reformers insisted it was necessary (not for salvation, but for faithfulness to the precepts of God) to own faithful covenants and confessions. They are "a" rule of faith and practice (not "the" rule of faith and practice) because they are agreeable to and founded upon God's Word. Such was the position of our reformers:
Register of the Council of 24
12 November 1537. It was reported
that yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation
were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did not do
so. No one came from the German quarter. It was decided that they should be
commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation.
26 November 1537. Some people
have been reported to have said that it was perjury to swear to a confession
which had be 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 Nehemiah and Jeremiah) proved that the people
should all be assembled to swear to keep faith with God and observe his
commandments (Cited in The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland by Johnson and Scribner, p. 138).
What ever we are obliged to
believe and profess as the saving truth of God, that we may lawfully swear to
profess, believe and practice, that the bond of faith may be sure: but wee are
obliged to believe and profess the national confession of a sound church. . . .
and we also swear a National covenant, not as it is mans word, or because the
Church or Doctors, at the Churches direction, have set it down in such and such
words, such an order or method, but because it is Gods Word, so that we swear
to the sense, and meaning of the platform of confession, as to the Word of God;
now the Word of God, and sense and meaning of the Word is all one; Gods Law and
the true meaning of the Law are not two different things. . . . Therefore it is
all one whether a Church swear a confession, in express words of Scripture; or
a covenant in other words expounding the Scriptures true meaning and sense
according to the language and proper idiom of the Nation and Church; for we
swear not words or a platform as it is such, but the matter, sense, and meaning
of the Scriptures of God set down in that platform. . . . 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 lay a new band on our souls to perform holy
duties, where we swear a breach, and find by experience there hath been a a
breach; is also a dutie of moral and perpetual equity . . . (The Due Right
Of Presbyteries, Rutherford, pp. 132134).
At the treaty of Uxbridge, the
propositions for religion (of which the confirming of the covenant is the first
and chiefest) were acknowledged to be of such excellency and absolute
necessity, as they were appointed to be treated of the first place. . . . But
their offence which still refuse to take the covenant is not only sinful in
itself, but a great dishonour to God, a great scandal to the church, and withal
a disobedience to the lawful ordinance of authority (Miscellany Questions, Chapter XVI, Gillespie, pp. 85, 86, 87).
It is a moral duty to abjure all
the points of Popery, which was done in the national covenant; and it is a
moral duty to endeavour our own reformation and the reformation of the church,
which was sworn to in both covenants; it is a moral duty, to endeavour the
reformation of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and
government, which was sworn to in the league and covenant; it is a moral duty
to purge out all unlawful officers out of God's house, and to endeavour the
extirpation of heresy and schism, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine,
which was sworn to there also; it is a moral duty to do what God had commanded
toward superiors, inferiors and equals, which, by the league and covenant, all
were bound unto; and, therefore, the covenants are strongly obliging, being more
absolute than other covenants, because they bind et vi materiae et vi
sanctionis, *both by reason of the matter and by reason of the oath, and so
are perpetual, Jer. l.5. . . . * (An Apologetical Relation, John Brown of Wamphray, p. 173).
Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath
touching any thing that is good and just imposed by lawful authority (Westminster
Confession of Faith, 22:3).
Dick, all of the authorities
cited above indicate that it is *necessary* to
take a lawful covenant and not to
do so is sin.
Mr. Price addresses in a previous letter (121896) why the PRCE has not
broken any vows:
I couldn't agree with you more. However, our yeas cannot be yeas if our yeas lead us to sin. In such a case our yeas must become nays.
Mr. Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
Exactly. You have made the SL&C the rule of faith and practice. By referring to the nonnecessity of taking a particular covenant as a sin, you have made it the (or at least "a") rule of faith and practice.
(WLC 3) What is the word of God?
The holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.
(WSC 2) What rule hath God given
to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
The Word of God, which is
contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to
direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
Did the reformers contradict themselves in the necessity of taking lawful covenants, oaths, and vows? According to your view they must contradict their own standards, for WCF 22:3 affirms that it is a sin not take a lawful oath.
Mr. Price addressing the dissociation of the Puritan Reformed Church from
the Reformation Presbyterian Church states in a previous letter (121896):
Our request for such a meeting as we proposed did not imply that nothing at all had happened. This meeting was intended to address exactly that issue: What has happened? Brother, how we handle disagreements in our marriage is one thing and whether or not we are married is another thing. What we are addressing is the matter that we could not discuss our "disagreements" while pretending as if we were married (when we believed we were not married).
Dick Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
I disagree with you. On the one hand we have a group claiming that it made UNLAWFUL vows (I do not refer here to rash vows, since such must be kept). Yet for you to be released from those vows, you have the burden to demonstrate that those vows were, in fact, unlawful. We do not believe that it is possible for two men to become lawfully married (or for one presently in the state of matrimony to vow to marry another, etc.); however, it is necessary for a couple who have lived as married to demonstrate that their vows were nonbinding.
Greg Price responds in the present letter (1997):
I took no vows. No one took vows for me. Furthermore, approving the wording of a subscription statement and formally taking subscription vows are two different matters altogether. Moreover, even if (for the sake of argument) vows were taken, they cannot bind if they require us *to do any thing forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded* (WCF 22:7). Since it was stated in the supposed formation of the RPC that it is *not necessary* to take the covenant of the three kingdoms, it would be necessary to disavow such an unlawful vow for the reasons cited above.
Mr. Price clears up a miscommunication in a previous letter (121896):
You counted correctly. Math never was my favorite subject. I think I may have meant to say *these issues* rather than *three issues.* Oh well.
Mr. Bacon agrees in previous letter (121996):
That makes sense.
Mr. Price asks in a previous letter (121896) for clarification
regarding Mr. Bacon's recollection of discussion surrounding the statement
adopted at the "organizational meeting" in Atlanta, GA (Oct.1, 1994):
"It is not necessary to take the Covenant of the three kingdoms."
I must confess, I do not remember the discussion. If you do, please jog my memory. I believe that meeting was taped as well. Perhaps the tape would reveal what was said.
Mr. Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
Quite simple really. Necessity implies some rule other than Scripture which binds the conscience. If you wish to take the SL&C (which I assume you have done), no bother to me. However, the term "necessity" implies precisely the position that y'all have now taken which I believe to be directly contrary to the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
If we have violated sola Scriptura by making the SL&C a necessity, so have the Westminster divines. For they made it such a necessity that not to take it meant enduring the censures of both the church and state.
Mr. Price discusses in a previous letter (121896) the willingness of
the RPC to meet with the PRC:
No, I never suggested that you had stubbornly refused to discuss these issues of conscience with us. However, neither did you agree to meet with us as we proposed so as to discuss these matters. Furthermore, we did not receive any official response to our concerns which were addressed to the Reformation Presbyterian Church (except to note in the minutes that our Overture was not in the right form. We agree that under circumstances that would allow us to remain in a rightly constituted presbytery, we should take the steps outlined above. But that is the very assumption that has not been proven (Was it rightly constituted?). As we continued to indicate by means of email communication to the presbytery, we wanted to talk. We just could not do so while considering ourselves members of a presbytery that was not rightly constituted.
Dick Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
Your accusation that I did not agree to meet with you is simply not true. We had a meeting of Presbytery scheduled to meet in Feb. of 1995 [1996 GB]. We were all willing to postpone that meeting until April in order to give your session time to prepare its case and to prosecute an overture. That does NOT demonstrate an unwillingness to talk, brother quite the opposite in my opinion. Again, if in February of 1995 [1996 GB] you believed that Presbytery was not rightly constituted, you could have brought that information, proved your case, called us to repentance, and so on. I cannot see from any of your argumentation thus far (including that which was sent to the Presbytery in March 1995 [1996 GB] and which you did not then follow up), that the Presbytery has done anything of an irremedial nature.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
You were unwilling to meet with us in any setting except one in which we would have to recognize your jurisdiction. We were willing to come to a meeting when you held your presbytery. We only asked that such a meeting with us not be held while you met in some "official" capacity.
Mr. Bacon writes in a previous letter (121296) regarding the Revolution
Settlement:
(2) It was a compromise of the position previously taken by the kirk of Scotland with respect to uniformity of religion.
Mr. Price replies in a previous letter (121896):
I would add, it was an abominable abjuration of the covenanted reformation.
Mr. Bacon responds in a previous letter (121996):
Yes, that is a more inflammatory way of saying the same thing.
Mr. Price attempts to clarify the question in a previous letter (121896):
I am sorry if the question was too vague. Perhaps this may communicate my concern more clearly: Do we have a duty to dissociate ourselves from all ecclesiastical descendants of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland (i.e. all those churches that disown or disregard the attainments of the second reformation in their constitutions)?
Mr. Bacon responds in a previous letter (121996):
See, that depends entirely on how you view "attainments." What is one person's "attainment" is another's "traditions of men." As far as the moral and perpetual obligations of the SL&C, I find them fully spelled out in the documents produced by the Assembly, including the Confession, Catechisms, Form of Presbyterial Church Government, and Directory for the Publick Worship of God, etc. And I adhere completely to those moral and perpetual obligations (attainments, if you prefer).
Mr. Price responds again in the present letter (1997):
Then why was it necessary at the time of the second reformation to take the SL&C at all? If it did not add any thing by way of moral or perpetual obligation why was it the first and chief document emitted by the Assembly? If it was a moral obligation for them to take the SL&C, why is it not a moral obligation for us to take it? Do you consider the SL&C an attainment or a tradition of men?
Mr. Bacon asks in a previous letter (121296) what the Free Presbyterian
Church of Scotland being a descendant of the Revolution settlement in its
constitution has to do with the PRCE's dissociation:
(4) What has that to do with us or with anything that took place prior to your letter of disassociation?
Mr. Price replies in a previous letter (121896):
With all due respect brother, it has everything to do with our letter of dissociation. For the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has adopted in substance the original constitution of the Free Church of Scotland which adopted in substance the original constitution of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland. In other words, there is a direct line of ecclesiastical descent from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland to the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland. I have already described the constitution of the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland to be an abominable abjuration of the attainments of the second reformation (cf. Plain Reasons For Presbyterians Dissenting by Clarkson). Since one of those points of sinful and wilful abjuration was the neglectful silence concerning the previous burning and burying of the sacred covenants of Scotland and thus the necessary implication that "it was not necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms," and since this was the language adopted toward the SLC at the first meeting in Atlanta, and since the Reformation Presbyterian Church subsequently adopted the standards of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, it is directly to the point of our concern as to what you presently believe concerning the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which church has not yet set the record straight concerning her own sinful abjuration of the attainments of the second reformation).
Mr. Bacon responds in a previous letter (121996):
But you have not spelled out, other than your desire to take a 17th century vow for three (count'em) kingdoms precisely WHAT is the abjuration of and what the attainment is. Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning ourselves with a 17th century document is sinful (that seems to be what I've read thus far in both your overture and your posts)? If so, then you have made that 17th century document the rule of faith and practice. Necessity is not laid upon me to hold the traditions of men else God shares the throne of my conscience with mortals.
Mr. Price responds again in the present letter (1997):
Who are the *posterity* bound by the SL&C (articles I & V)? Furthermore, "all his majesties dominions" are comprehended as descendants upon whom obligations fall (that includes Canada and the U.S.). Do you really think the passage of time releases posterity from its obligation to lawful covenants (*Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning ourselves with a 17th century covenant is sinful?*). Yes, the covenants are of moral and perpetual obligation upon "posterity." We are both national and ecclesiastical posterity to those who swore the SL&C.
Mr. Bacon answers the question in a previous letter (121296) whether
or not he believes the US constitution is immoral (but does not answer either
the question as to who are the posterity bound by the Solemn League and
Covenant or who are comprehended as descendants under the phrase, "all his
majesties dominions"):
(5) It is an immoral constitution. I think the second part of your question was intended to ask a moral question, but I cannot tell what it is.
Mr. Price replies in a previous letter (121896):
Since you believe the U.S. Constitution is immoral, ought a Christian to hold an office which would require him to take an oath of allegiance to the constitution (and further, ought a Christian to vote for any one that will be required to take an oath of allegiance to the constitution)?
Mr. Bacon responds in a previous letter (121996):
Of course not. One may not promise to sin. Why are you just now getting around to asking these questions?
Mr. Price discusses subscription vows in a previous letter (121896):
Thus, if I understand correctly the above biblical citation and response, you do believe that church officers may take subscription vows for other church officers without their consent or approval, or without such being understood by those witnessing the vows. Again I ask you to cite any presbyterian book of church order to that effect. You later imply that you agree that Mr. Barrow did not take vows for me. So what is the point of your argument here? Biblical covenants or vows that bound succeeding generations, were understood by those who were present that such was the case.
Mr. Bacon responds in a previous letter (121996):
And I so understood the promises I made on July 22, 1995. I made those promises for me. Mr. Seekamp, as the duly appointed representative of the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, made them for the church. Any subsequently elected officers of FPCR must adhere to the same subscription.
Mr. Price answers in the present letter (1997):
The only problem is that it was not made clear that constitutional vows were being made.
Mr. Price continues from a previous letter (121896):
This is precisely my point, this was not the case as it relates to me (i.e even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Barrow took a legitimate vow by which he himself is bound, no one understood that Mr. Barrow was taking a vow on my behalf of Mr. Price).
Mr. Bacon agrees in a previous letter (121996) that Mr. Price did not
take any constitutional vows:
I agree that your status was not being represented by Mr. Barrow. I do, however, understand that he was there for the Edmonton church qua church.
Mr. Price responds again in the present letter (1997):
Yes, he represented the Edmonton Church, but he did not know he was taking a vow.
Mr. Price asks in a previous letter (121896) concerning the videotape
of the meeting where the constitutional vow was allegedly taken:
Dick, I intend no disrespect, but I must ask: Why have you had access to this video tape while others have been denied access to this video tape? I understand Bruce Robinson asked David Seekamp if he could view this tape and was denied access to it.
Mr. Bacon responds in a previous letter (121996):
I have no knowledge of others being denied access to anything. The videos are mine. They are not and never have been regarded as an official document or property of the presbytery. Since Mr. Seekamp does not have access himself I'm not sure how he could "deny" access to another.
Mr. Price asks for a copy of the tape in the present letter (1997):
Would you please send me a copy of the video of that meeting (June 7)? I will gladly reimburse you for your expenses.
[As of January 2, 1998, Dick Bacon has not yet responded to this request
GB]
Mr. Price writes in a previous letter (121896) concerning the proper
method of correcting erring minutes of presbytery as it applies to the alleged
vows that were taken July 22, 1995:
My point in directing you to the Free Presbyterian Book of Church Order was to demonstrate that minutes (even approved minutes) may be subsequently corrected if they are found to be in error. Moreover, since there is no higher court to which to appeal in such a matter, the presbytery itself may subsequently correct its own minutes if they are in error. To maintain a contrary position is to say that error that is formally approved, is error that can never be corrected until there is a higher court. Is that your understanding of approved minutes?
Mr. Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
Not at all. Nor has anything I have said implied such. What I "have" stated is that there is an onus probandi that falls to those who believe that approved minutes are incorrect.
[Note: Is there not yet sufficient warrant (prima facie) to question whether
the minutes accurately reflect what occurred in the meeting of July 22, 1995
when three of the four ministers and two of the three ruling elders on Sessions
agree that no vows were taken? GB]
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
I would think that the testimony of a ruling elder and the moderator to the effect that no recollection of vows being taken would be sufficient to warrant further corroboration from other sources or other witnesses such as video tapes.
Mr. Price discusses in a previous letter (121896) the subscription
statement that Mr. Bacon identifies as a constitutional vow:
Dick, the nature of the motion (it appears to me as I read the minutes) was simply to approve the subscription statement as one by which officers would subsequently be admitted into the presbytery. If it were clearly understood by all to be the case that they were formally taking vows then it is unclear to me why it was necessary to add the notation that this motion constituted vows on the part of all who voted. Thus, this is the reason why we have appealed to a tape of the meeting to determine whether that notation was made clear. For without that notation, I would not understand that the motion was any more than a motion to approve of the wording of the subscription statement. Whether our session approved of the subscription statement at that time is not really relevant to the issue. Even if we maintain we did approve of the wording of the statement and that our approval was so indicated by Mr. Barrow's vote, the issue of whether vows were consciously taken still remains.
[Note: And the question as to why Mr. Bacon refused to produce the video
tape of this meeting continues to be an issue. Since he has the video tapes
that could beyond a shadow of doubt once and for all demonstrate that vows were
taken by those men present at the July 22, 1995 meeting, why has he not
produced them? This was a major cause for the dissociation of three ministers and
two ruling elders. If he possesses evidence that they took vows, why has he not
produced it? GB]
Mr. Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
OK, we disagree on this point; but please allow me to assume your pov [point of view GB] for the sake of some agreement. If it is the case that Mr. Barrow did believe the subscription statement was the one by which officers would *subsequently* be admitted to the presbytery, why did he vote for it? Was he willing *at some future unspecified date* to subscribe it? If so, then how might he or any other conscionable reader have understood the term "covenant" as used in the document? If he later changed his mind, and believed that it was an unlawful requirement that would "at some future unspecified date" become necessary for officers to subscribe, then why was it necessary to withdraw "prior" to that future date coming about, when there was still opportunity to call the presbytery to repentance?
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
At that point in time, he did approve of the wording of the subscription statement. That is why he voted for it. I have already addressed why it was necessary to withdraw from the presbytery in the manner we did.
Mr. Price asks in a previous letter (121897) for a videotape of the
July 22, 1995 meeting in question (wherein vows were allegedly taken):
I cannot possibly understand how if that were understood by all, how the majority of officers who were present at that meeting deny that such formal vows were consciously taken. Again I request you to provide me with either a copy of that tape or a transcript of the tape that would help clarify this whole matter. Thanks Dick.
Mr. Bacon replies in a previous letter (121996):
Well, I cannot understand how people who have behaved in the manner that has been done will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and expect to be exonerated. But obviously you disagree with me on that. You say that you are asking "again." Please produce a copy of your first or subsequent request.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
I do believe I had previously requested a copy of the tape (I do not have the time presently to look back at the email messages), but even if you are correct, I request that you send me a copy of the tape (at my expense of course).
Mr. Bacon writes in a previous letter (121997) regarding his
willingness to dialog as a private believer:
As I have stated to you in previous posts, I am fully willing to "dialog" as a private believer. Further, that is all either of us has done. I would say the same thing is true of any correspondence you may have had with Messrs. Robinson and Seekamp, or Dr. Crick. None of these things has come before Presbytery for resolution.
Mr. Price asks in the present letter (1997):
With Mr. Robinson's and Dr. Crick's dissociation from the RPC, do you believe there is yet a presbytery?
[Note: This question was never answered by Mr. Bacon GB]
Mr. Bacon writes in a previous letter (121997) regarding the propriety
of the PRCE's dissociation:
You do not think you have done anything wrong. I think the session of Edmonton PRC has behaved itself badly. I think you have been hasty and rash. Further, I think some of the statements that you made to me prior to the March 1995 [1996 GB] disassociation were misleading at best.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
None of my statements were misleading at the time they were written. They represented my views. It was in the month of March that we realized we must dissociate in order to be faithful to the Lord.
Dick Bacon asks in a previous letter (121996):
What else would you like to "dialog" about? I think I've answered your five questions, but if I have been unclear about any of it, let me know and I'll try to clarify my positions.
Mr. Price responds in the present letter (1997):
Could you cite any divine of the first or second reformation that holds your view that if a confession or covenant is considered "necessary" to take, that by that fact it replaces the Word of God and denies sola Scriptura?
[Note: This question was never answered by Mr. Bacon. This is significant
in that Mr. Bacon has in effect condemned the whole reformation with his
position that it is not necessary to swear Covenants and Confessions of Faith
that are agreeable to the Word of God. How can it be a denial of sola Scriptura
to swear a biblical Covenant or Confession when it is the Scripture itself (as
the alone infallible rule of faith and practice) by which the Covenant or
Confession is judged to be one to which a nation or church can swear? GB]
This concluded the email conversation between Pastor Price and Mr. Bacon.
Mr. Bacon ceased communication without informing Pastor Price or the Session of
the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton.
Finally, I ask Mr. Bacon to name those "many men" whom he claims
have attempted to use modest means of reconciliation with us. The only man I
can name who used a godly approach toward the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton was Mr. Todd Ruddell (though, at that time, not even a member of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church), and though his argument was seriously flawed,
his tone was exemplary. We ask Mr. Bacon to describe how these socalled
"many men" used
modest means to reclaim us from our alleged errors. We do not know to whom
he is referring and would be willing to examine his evidence if he cited it.
Now that the reader has had an opportunity to hear both sides of the story
let him judge who it was that would not use more modest means of
reconciliation.
I close this Appendix with a quote from John Calvin:
For what were we to do? The only terms on which we could purchase peace were to betray the truth of God by silence.... What else, then, at the very least, could we do, than testify with a clear voice that we had no fellowship with impiety? We have, therefore, simply studied to do what was our duty (John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, p. 184)
The LORD judge between me and
thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee (1
Samuel 24:12, AV).
Go back to Table of Contents
Go to Appendix D
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!)