This is tape two of the Protestant Antidote
to Modern Schismatical Disunity, being chapter four of
Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
Contemporary Schismatics, narrated by Larry Berger.
Please note that this entire book is free
on Stillwater Survival Books' website, www.swrv.com.
It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters,
along with a treasure trove of the finest
Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in
the world today.
Stillwaters can be reached at 780-450-3730
or by email at swrv at swrv.com.
These tapes are not copyrighted, and we therefore
encourage you to copy and distribute them to
any and all you believe would be benefited.
We continue our reading.
A triple standard in the Reformation Presbyterian Church?
In Defense Departed, Mr. Bacon states, quote, Let
it simply be recorded that the Act, Declaration,
and Testimony is itself a book over two
hundred pages and expatiates in stelite terms the
Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church
of Scotland from the year 1638 to the
year 1649 inclusive.
That book contains an additional five hundred-plus
pages of historical rulings, acts, and testimonies.
Of course, that material contains references to still
other material, and so forth.
If that amount of reading seems to our
readers like a tremendous overhead to require of
Christians before admitting them to the Lord's Table,
then our readers agree with us.
Contrary to what he asserts in Defense Departed,
in his forgotten letter, fully cited in Appendix
A of the Covenanted Reformation Defended, Mr. Bacon
says that he requires the following of his
officers as terms of ministerial communion, quote, We
the undersigned Ministers and Elders of the Free
Church of Scotland, considering that the Constitution of
the said Church, as settled in 1843, is
contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as
approved by the General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland in 1647, the First and Second
Books of Discipline, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms,
the Claim, Declaration, and Protest of 1842, the
Protest of 1843, the Act of Separation and
Deed of Demission executed in the last mentioned
year, the formula appointed to be subscribed by
probationers before receiving license, and by all office
-bearers at the time of their admission, together
with the questions appointed to be put to
the same parties at ordination and admission, and
the Acts of the Assembly of the Church
of Scotland prior to 1843, and that's from
the Deed of Separation, cited from a manual
of practice in the Free Presbyterian Church of
Scotland, based on the practice of the Church
of Scotland in her several courts, fourth edition
as revised in 1886, pages 116 to 117.
Is it not abundantly evident that Mr. Bacon
requires even more explicit historical testimony of his
Ministers, Elders, Deacons, and Probationers than the so
-called Stelites?
Are these not terms of ministerial communion?
Are his Elders and Deacons not members of
his congregation?
How does he explain requiring historical testimony as
a term of communion for his officers, while
excluding his congregation from the same standard, while
at the same time vilifying faithful Covenanters for
practicing the same principle?
What hypocrisy!
Dear reader, this again is a gross oversight
on his part.
He has again condemned himself and undone most
of his own argument in Defense Departed, with
this one glaring inconsistency.
Sadly, it gets worse.
Contradicting himself again, Mr. Bacon sets forth yet
another standard of communion, this time apparently for
non-officers, when he says, quote, "...this point
in the six terms of communion seems like
a reasonable place to put something about a
personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
After all, in Acts 8.37, that was
the only term of communion that Philip the
Evangelist seemed concerned to enforce."
Again from Defense Departed.
Which is it, Mr. Bacon?
On the one hand, you call for a
simple profession of faith as the only term
of communion for your members, and on the
other, you require your officers to swear ordination
vows that include hundreds of pages of historical
testimony.
Let the reader note that Mr. Bacon is
clearly speaking out of both sides of his
mouth.
Again I ask, are his elders and deacons
not members of his church?
Do they have some special status and requirement
for admittance to the Lord's Table that his
members do not share?
Clearly, Mr. Bacon requires historical testimony for his
ministerial terms of communion, but simple profession for
the rest of his members and visitors.
Are the substance of the RPC's ordination vows
not the same as his terms of communion?
What would happen to an officer of the
FPCR if they obstinately and willfully opposed the
Acts of General Assembly, FPCR session, or any
of the historical deeds cited above?
What would happen if they obstinately broke any
one of their ordination vows?
Would they not be judged scandalous and barred
from communion until such time as they repented?
Therefore, the substance of the RPC's ordination vows
are clearly terms of communion, although Mr. Bacon
doesn't seem to realize it yet.
Next, if a minister, elder, or deacon could
not come to the communion table in the
FPCR because of obstinately speaking against one of
the above-mentioned articles, why would it be
all right for a member of the Church
to do so?
Does Mr. Bacon advocate one standard of faith
for his elders and a different standard of
faith for his members?
Are there two or three different moral standards
in the Reformation Presbyterian Church?
It appears so.
The members of the First Presbyterian Church of
Rowlett are not even required to swear to
endeavor to uphold their own Church standards before
coming to communion.
This triple standard, such as is commonly practiced
in the Christian churches of our nation, makes
a popish distinction between the clergy and the
laity.
The same terms of communion ought to apply
to officers and members alike.
May members of the FPCR come to the
communion table if they obstinately teach premillennialism to
others?
How about if they teach others that singing
exclusively psalms in public worship is wrong and
singing hymns with instrumental accompaniment in public worship
is right?
Apparently, these people can come to Mr. Bacon's
communion table, since according to Mr. Bacon, a
simple profession of faith, like the Ethiopian eunuch,
is the only term of agreement necessary.
How does Mr. Bacon reconcile that with the
fact that he believes that teaching such doctrines
are scandalous?
Will he allow those who are openly scandalous
doctrinally to his communion table?
Yes, it appears so, since he desires to
be so generous, more generous than has to
allow a simple profession of faith to be
his only term of communion.
Furthermore, not only is there a Romish distinction
made between the clergy and the laity, but
in reality, visitors who come to Rowlett are
judged with one standard while the congregation is
judged with another.
The members of the congregation of FPCR would
be censured for obstinately and publicly promoting such
doctrine as dispensationalism, Arminianism, independency, etc., while a
visitor from a Baptist, Arminian, or independent church
would be welcomed at the communion table based
upon their simple profession of faith.
Why shouldn't Arminian ministers and visitors be allowed
to come to the First Presbyterian Church of
Rowlett if a simple profession of faith is
all that is required?
And if they are not welcomed to the
communion table of the FPCR, then we must
ask, why not?
Surely most Arminians will say as much as
the Ethiopian eunuch.
As you can see, false doctrine breeds confusion
and tyranny in the discipline of the church.
True liberty of conscience is destroyed by popish
practice lurking under the cloak of tolerance and
pretended unity.
Ministers have communion on one standard, members on
another, and finally visitors on yet another.
Each descending standard becomes more latitudinarian and more
damaging to the preservation of sound doctrine and
uniform practice.
Does Mr. Bacon really require the simple profession
of faith of the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8,
35-37?
Does Mr. Bacon only have one simple term
of communion?
His terms of communion are never explicitly stated,
though I will attempt to infer what he
requires from his defense departed.
His practice so contradicts his principle that it
is hard to tell what he believes.
Nevertheless, it will become clear as we proceed
that Mr. Bacon's thinking is so far off
that, even if we give him every benefit
of the doubt, he will still be left
holding to papist principles.
An Examination of Mr. Bacon's Principles in Regards
to his Terms of Communion Mr. Bacon's system
of toleration can be deduced from the words
of his own mouth when he says, 1.
In quoting the 1560 Confession in defense of
the PRCE's status as a true Church of
Christ, we do not mean that we agree
with the terms of communion of the PRCE
or that everyone the section of the PRCE
has barred from the communion table has been
justly so barred.
We believe their view of closed communion to
be an error, but we do not believe
it is an error that prevents them from
rightly being called a true Church of Christ.
2.
Note also what a far cry steals position
regarding the necessity of uninspired history as part
of the terms of communion is from the
simple profession of faith of the Ethiopian eunuch
and of Peter.
3.
This point in the six terms of communion
seems like a reasonable place to put something
about a personal profession of faith in Jesus
Christ.
After all, in Acts 8.37, that was
the only term of communion that Philip the
Evangelist seemed concerned to enforce.
4.
Finally, Paul teaches that females who have been
baptized into Christ are also communicant members of
the Church.
5.
Like Paul, I fear that these human additions
to the requirements of the Lord's table are
corrupting minds from the simplicity that is in
Christ.
From these quotes, we can deduce that Mr.
Bacon holds the following position regarding terms of
communion.
First, negatively.
A.
He does not agree with the six terms
of communion of the VRCE and believes our
view of close communion to be an error.
Two, positively.
A.
A personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ
was all that Philip required as a term
of communion, and he, the eunuch, answered and
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God, Acts 8.37. B.
Though Mr. Bacon does not explicitly say which
profession of Peter he was referring to, I
think it is reasonable to infer that he
meant Peter's simple profession of faith as found
in Matthew 16.16. And Simon Peter answered
and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God.
C.
All who are baptized are to be admitted
to communion, except, of course, infants and children
who have not made a profession of faith.
This is significant in that, except as it
applies to covenant children, Mr. Bacon is equating
the qualifications necessary for both baptism and the
Lord's Supper.
As the reader shall see in the following
examination, this is a serious error.
D.
Human additions to the requirements of the Lord's
Table are corrupting minds from the simplicity of
Christ.
First, I would note that the Ethiopian eunuch
did not receive communion, but was simply baptized
in Acts 8.36-38.
The reader is asked to consult the passage
to see if this has anything to do
with admission to the Lord's Supper.
The only reason Mr. Bacon would cite this
in regard to terms of communion would be
because he equates the qualifications for baptism and
communion.
And as they went on their way, they
came unto a certain water, and the eunuch
said, See, here is water.
What doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all
thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still,
and they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized
them, Acts 8.36-38.
Naftali Press has done an excellent job of
republishing the classic book entitled Just Divinum Regimenus
Ecclesiasticae, that is, The Divine Rite of Church
Government, by the London ministers, and therein we
are furnished with an applicable commentary to undo
Mr. Bacon's ill-conceived notions regarding the baptism
of the Ethiopian eunuch.
One would hope that in the future Mr.
Bacon's publisher would instruct him more clearly in
what his republished books contain.
Besides, by the ordinance of baptism we are
all admitted into one body, the general visible
church, 1 Corinthians 12.12, and some were
baptized into the general body that thereby were
not admitted into any particular church as the
eunuch in Acts 8.
How do terms of communion apply to someone
who has yet to be admitted to a
particular church?
How would the eunuch partake of communion outside
of a particular church?
Furthermore, Peter's profession, Matthew 16.16, is entirely
unrelated to a communion service.
Neither of these instances provide Mr. Bacon with
any proof of his position.
Second, I would point out that, by his
own words, Mr. Bacon appears to require nothing
more than a simple profession of faith to
admit someone to the Lord's table.
A simple profession of which particular statements of
faith he doesn't say.
I assume that this profession would have to
include at least some of the so-called
simple fundamentals of the faith.
One would hope that he would at least
inquire as to whether someone is Trinitarian, believes
the Bible is God's word, or whether the
prospective communicant believes in the bodily return of
our Lord and Savior.
Whatever his minimal standard is, we can by
his own words, as cited above, reasonably infer
that Mr. Bacon is promoting an extreme form
of latitudinarian communion, and conversely that he unabashedly
denounces the idea of a close communion.
John Anderson comments on this latitudinarian scheme, quote,
In the first place, it is a sectarian
communion.
Its existence supposes that there are sects and
parties in the Catholic, that is, universal church,
and that the variety of men's opinions, habits,
and feelings is sufficient to justify the continuance
of them.
Scriptural sacramental communion, that is, close communion, admits
of no sects, requiring all partakers of it
to be one bread, one body, perfectly joined
together in the same mind and in the
same judgment.
In the second place, it is an unfaithful
and dishonest scheme.
It is unfaithful to the Lord Jesus, for
under the pretext of expressing love to him
at his table, it regards the denial of
some of his truths or institutions, however openly
or obstinately persisted in, as a trivial matter,
deserving no church censure.
When the advocates for this scheme represent the
truths and institutions of Christ that are publicly
opposed by corrupt churches as sectarian and local
peculiarities, they are chargeable with great unfaithfulness to
the Lord Christ, to these churches, and to
the whole Catholic Church.
They are chargeable with attempting to heal the
wound of God's people slightly, saying, Peace, peace,
while there is no peace.
Thirdly, it is a backsliding scheme.
There is nothing more incumbent on a particular
church than steadfastness in maintaining all the articles
of divine truth stated in her confession and
testimony.
But as soon as the practice obtains in
any particular church of having sacramental communion with
the open and obstinate opposers of any of
these articles, that church thereby falls from her
steadfastness and is chargeable in some measure with
apostasy.
Hence, we teach that all churches which do
not base their communion upon faithful and explicit
terms of agreement are to be avoided and
withdrawn from.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned, and avoid them.
Romans 16, 17.
Sadly, Mr. Bacon says, we believe their view
of closed communion to be an error.
Therefore I, without any reservation, maintain that Mr.
Bacon is a minister who ought to be
avoided and withdrawn from.
His scheme is unfaithful and leads the children
of God into backsliding and sectarian sin.
It is an inherently schismatic view, and we
will not and cannot countenance such ministers who
are dividing and wounding the church of Jesus
Christ.
Third, we in the PRCE teach that the
ground of the church's profession is based upon
God's word alone, though we recognize that the
acts and modes of preserving and maintaining the
true religion in the visible church, as to
well-being, are necessarily human.
Mr. Bacon, in his arrogance and ignorance, labels
us as popes and pharisees for adhering to
human constitutions that are agreeable to the word
of God.
By means of our terms of communion, we
are simply explaining and applying our alone infallible
rule of faith, while neither adding nor detracting
from its authority.
Why does Mr. Bacon deride us for that
which is unavoidable, especially when he clearly does
the same thing?
Thomas McCree powerfully explains, but while the matter,
as well as the ground, of the church's
profession is, properly speaking, divine, the acts and
modes of professing and maintaining it are necessarily
human.
When false and corrupt views of Christianity become
general, it is necessary that confessions of the
truth in opposition to them be embodied in
formal and written documents, which may be known
and read by all men.
It is not enough that Christians confess their
faith individually, to comply with divine commands, to
answer to their character as church members, and
the better to gain the ends in view.
It is requisite that they make a joint
and common confession.
When the truths contained in the word of
God have been explicitly stated and declared, in
opposition to existing errors, by the proper authority
in a church, an approbation of such statements
and declarations may be required as a test
of soundness in the faith and Christian fidelity,
without any unwarrantable imposition on conscience or the
most distant reflection on the perfection of Scripture.
The same arguments which justify the use of
creeds and confessions will also justify particular declarations
or testimonies directed against errors and corruptions prevailing
in churches which still retain scriptural formularies.
Those who allow the former cannot consistently condemn
the latter.
It is not sufficient to entitle persons to
the character of faithful witnesses of Christ, that
they profess a general adherence to the Bible
or a sound confession of faith, provided they
refuse or decline to direct and apply these
seasonably against present evils.
It might as well be said that the
soldier has acquitted himself well in battle because
he had excellent armor lying in a magazine
or a sword hanging by his side, although
he never brought forth the armor nor drew
the sword from its scabbard.
The means alluded to are the unsheathing of
the sword and the wielding of the armor
of the church.
So far from setting aside the authority of
Scripture, they are necessary for keeping a sense
of it alive on the spirits of men
and for declaring the joint views and animating
the combined endeavors of those who adhere to
it.
By explaining and applying a rule, we do
not add to it nor do we detract
from its authority.
Mr. Bacon charges us with requiring implicit faith
when he says, The PRCE has adopted this
entire line of thinking by the approach of
first accept the doctrine, then you can understand
it later.
But this is the very kind of implicit
faith required by Rome and condemned by our
confession, where in chapter 20 section 2 it
states, the requiring of an implicit faith and
an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy
liberty of conscience and reason also.
And that's from Defense Departed.
In reality, it is Mr. Bacon's latitudinarian communion
that is founded in ignorance, delusion and blind
obedience.
Consequently, it is his pretended unity that attacks
true liberty of conscience.
Mr. Bacon's solution is one in which Christians
are to attend the Lord's Supper based upon
simple profession or fundamentals only.
The distinction between what is fundamental and non
-fundamental is not made in the word of
God and thus remains vague and arbitrary in
the minds of church officers.
This emphasis upon the necessary truths of scripture,
while helpful to didactic theology, is not useful,
indeed it is dangerous in this connection.
When applied to the communion table, the tendency
of this emphasis is to lead others to
consider that some truths of scripture are of
little or no importance.
Consequently, these little truths are considered too minute
to be contended for, and they are relegated
to realms of indifference and minutia.
Those who promote this unscriptural emphasis constantly whine
about conscientious Christians being overly concerned with so
-called minutia, such as singing psalms, Sabbath-keeping
and instrumental music in public worship.
Under the cloak of charity, forbearance and peace,
the so-called neutral principle of upholding the
fundamentals only becomes a law by which the
tolerance of all others is judged.
The law of communion by fundamentals only, not
being founded upon nor determinable by scripture, becomes
a law to be believed upon the authority
of the church only, and thus a certain
degree of blind obedience is required to observe
it.
This is the scheme proposed by Mr. Bacon,
and as we have observed repeatedly, his own
accusations are continually recoiling upon his own head.
According to his principles and to his law
of communion by fundamentals only, he should be
holding communion with the Church of Rome.
He makes the supposed state of an individual
profession the rule by which one is received
or rejected, and denies that the communion table
is fenced by the doctrinal and practical testimony
of the church corporate.
When a Roman Catholic comes to his communion
table and professes personal faith like the Ethiopian
eunuch, Mr. Bacon should, if he were to
be consistent with his doctrine, receive this Roman
Catholic professor.
If he allows a Roman Catholic to partake
individually, I cannot see what would stop him
from proceeding to the logical conclusion of actually
partaking with the Church of Rome herself.
This law of simple profession is simply a
dangerous error which shifts the ground of external
church communion from a corporate agreement in faith
and practice to a law requiring the toleration
of sectarian individual doctrine and practice.
The concealment of truth for the sake of
peace is certainly as dangerous as an outright
propagation of lies.
Latitudinarian schemes of communion, though often coupled with
the best intentions, are direct assaults upon the
Christian liberty of God's people and the purity
of the visible church.
The Danger of Latitudinarian Schemes of Union and
Fellowship Thomas McCree further explains, and this is
a lengthy quote, Mournful as the divisions of
the church are, and anxious as all its
genuine friends must be to see them cured,
it is their duty to examine carefully the
plans which may be proposed for attaining this
desirable end.
We must not do evil that good may
come, and there are sacrifices too costly to
be made for the procuring of peace with
fellow Christians.
Is it necessary to remind you that unity
and peace are not always good, nor assure
an infallible mark of a true and pure
church?
We know that there is a church which
has long boasted of her Catholic unity, notwithstanding
all the corruptions which pollute her communion, and
that within her pale the whole world, called
Christian, once enjoyed a profound repose, and it
could be said, Behold, the people is one,
and they have all one language, Genesis 11,
6.
It was a union and peace founded in
ignorance, delusion, implicit faith, and a base subjection
to human authority, and supported by the arts
of compulsion and terror.
But there are other methods by which Christians
may be deceived, and the interests of religion
deeply injured, under the pretext, or with the
view of uniting its friends.
Among these I know none more imposing, nor
from which greater danger is to be apprehended
in the present time, than that which proceeds
on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian.
It has obtained this name because it proclaims
an undue latitude in matters of religion, which
persons may take to themselves or give to
others.
Its abettors make light of the differences which
subsist among religious parties, and propose to unite
them on the common principles on which they
are already agreed, in the way of burying
the rest in silence, or of stipulating mutual
forbearance and charity with respect to everything about
which they may differ in opinion or in
practice.
Some plead for this on the ground that
the several professions of religion differ very little
from one another, and are all conducive to
the happiness of mankind and the honor of
God, who is pleased with the various diversified
modes in which men profess their regard to
Him, provided only they are sincere in their
professions.
A principle of deformity which, however congenial to
the system of polytheism, is utterly aversive of
a religion founded on the unity of the
divine nature and will, and on a revelation
which teaches us what we are to believe
concerning God and what duty He requires of
us.
But the ground on which this plan is
ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made
among the articles of religion.
Some of these are called essential or fundamental
or necessary or principal, others circumstantial or non
-fundamental or unnecessary or less important.
The former, it is pleaded, are embraced by
all true Christians, the latter form the subjects
of difference among them and ought not to
enter into the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship.
On this principle, some of them would conciliate
and unite all the Christian denominations, not accepting
Papists, Arians, and Socinians, while others restrict their
plan to those called evangelical, who differ mainly
in their views and practice as to the
worship, order, and discipline of the Church.
The distinction on which this scheme rests is
itself liable to objections which appear insuperable.
It is not warranted by the word of
God, and the most acute of its defenders
have never been able to state it in
a manner that is satisfactory or which renders
it subservient to any practical use.
The Scripture indeed speaks of certain truths which
may be called the foundation, because they are
first laid and others depend on them.
First principles are elementary truths which are to
be taught before others, but their priority or
posteriority in point of order, in conception or
instruction, does not determine the relative importance of
doctrines or their necessity in order to salvation,
far less does it determine the propriety of
their being made to enter into the religious
profession of Christians and Christian churches.
There are doctrines, too, which intrinsically and on
different accounts may be said to have a
peculiar and superior degree of importance, and this,
so far as known, may properly be urged
as a motive for our giving the more
earnest heed to them.
It is not, however, their comparative importance or
utility, but their truth and the authority of
Him who has revealed them, which is the
formal and proper reason of our receiving, professing,
and maintaining them.
And this applies equally to all the contents
of a divine revelation.
The relations of truths, especially those of supernatural
kind, are manifold and incomprehensible to us.
It is not our part to pronounce a
judgment on them, and if we could see
them as God does, in all their extent
and at once, we would behold the lesser
joined to the greater, the most remote connected
with the primary, by necessary and indissoluble links,
and altogether conspiring to form one beautiful and
harmonious and indivisible whole.
Whatever God has revealed we are bound to
receive and hold fast whatever He has enjoined
we are bound to obey, and the liberty
which we dare not arrogate to ourselves we
cannot give to others.
It is not, indeed, necessary that the confession
or testimony of the church, meaning by this
that which is explicitly made by her, as
distinguished from her declared adherence to the whole
word of God, should contain all truths.
But then any of them may come to
be included in it when opposed and endangered,
and it is no sufficient reason for excluding
any of them that they are less important
than others, or that they have been doubted
and denied by good and learned men.
Whatever forbearance may be exercised to persons, the
word of the Lord, in all its extent,
must have free course and be glorified.
And any act of men, call it forbearance
or what you will, which serves as a
screen and protection to error or sin, and
prevents it from being opposed and removed by
any proper means, is contrary to the divine
law and consequently is destitute of all intrinsic
force and validity.
There are truths also which are more immediately
connected with salvation, but who will pretend to
fix those propositions which are absolutely necessary to
be known in order to salvation by all
persons of all capacities and in all situations,
or say how low a God of grace
and salvation may descend in dealing with particular
individuals?
Or, if we could determine this extreme point,
who would say that it ought to fix
the rule of our dealing with others or
the extent of a church's profession of faith?
Is nothing else to be kept in view
in settling articles of faith and fellowship but
what may be necessary to the salvation of
sinners?
Do we not owe a paramount regard to
the glory of God in the highest, to
the edifying of the body of Christ, to
the advancing of the general interests of religion,
and to the preserving, in purity, of those
external means by which, in the economy of
providence and grace, the salvation of men, both
initial and progressive, may be promoted to an
incalculable extent from age to age?
In fine, there is reason for complaining that
the criteria or marks given for determining these
fundamental or necessary articles are uncertain or contradictory.
It is alleged that they are clearly taught
in Scripture.
This is true of others also.
That they are few and simple.
This is contradicted by their own attempts to
state them.
That they are such as the Scripture has
declared to be necessary.
Why, then, have we not yet been furnished
with a catalogue of them?
That they are such as embraced by all
true Christians.
Have they a secret tact by which they
are able to discover such characters?
If not, can they avoid running into a
vicious circle in reasoning by first determining who
are true Christians by their embracing certain doctrines,
and then determining that these doctrines are fundamental
because they are embraced by persons of that
description?
Many who have contributed to give currency to
this scheme have been actuated, I have no
doubt, by motives which are in themselves highly
commendable.
They wish to fix the attention of men
on matters confessedly of great importance, and were
anxious to put an end to the dissensions
of Christians by discovering a mean point in
which the views of all might harmoniously meet.
But surely those who cherish a supreme regard
for divine authority will be afraid of contemning
or of teaching others to think lightly of
anything which bears its sacred impress.
They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an
opinion or an interpretation of any part of
Scripture which seems to imply in it that
God has given men a power to dispense
with some of His own laws, and they
will be cautious of originating or countenancing plans
of communion that may involve a principle of
such a complexion.
These plans are more or less dangerous according
to the extent to which they are carried,
and the errors or abuses which may prevail
among the parties which they embrace.
But however limited they may be, they set
an example which may be carried to any
extent.
So far as it is agreed and stipulated
that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed
or neglected, and that any error or sin
shall be treated as indifferent or trivial, the
essence of Latitudinarianism is adopted, room is made
for further advancements, and the way is prepared
for ascending through successive generations to the very
highest degree in the scale.
Another plan of communion, apparently opposite to the
former, but proceeding on the same general principle,
has been zealously recommended, and in some instances
reduced to practice in the present day.
According to it, the several religious parties are
allowed to remain separate, and to preserve their
distinct constitution and peculiarities, while a species of
partial or occasional communion is established among them.
This plan is liable to all the objections
which lie against the former, with the addition
of another that is peculiar to itself.
It is inconsistent and self-contradictory.
It strikes against the radical principles of the
unity of the church, and confirms schism by
law, while it provides that the parties shall
remain separate, at the same time that it
proceeds on the supposition that there is no
scriptural or conscientious ground of difference between them.
And Barrow notes that this is Mr. Bacon's
plan of communion.
By defending such occasional conformity, English dissenters at
a former period contradicted the reasons of their
dissent from the establishment, and exposed themselves to
their opponents.
For where communion is lawful, it will not
be easy to vindicate separation from the charge
of schism.
The world has for some time beheld annually
the spectacle of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, and
Seceders, sitting down together at the Lord's table,
and then going away and maintaining communion through
the remainder of the year on their own
separate and contradictory professions.
Nay, it has of late become the practice
to keep, in the same church, an open
communion table for Christians of different denominations on
one part of the day, and a closed
one for those of a particular sect on
the other part of the day, while the
same ministers officiate, and many individuals communicate on
both these occasions.
And all this is cried up as a
proof of liberality, and a mind that has
freed itself from the trammels of party.
It is difficult to say which of these
plans is most objectionable.
By the former, that church which is most
faithful, and has made the greatest progress in
reformation, must always be the loser, without having
the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed
any benefit to her new associates.
It behoves her profession and managements to yield,
and to be reduced to the standard of
those societies which are defective and less reformed.
And thus, by a process opposite to that
mentioned by the Apostle, those who have built
on the foundation gold, silver, and precious stones,
are the persons who shall suffer loss.
By the latter scheme, all the good effects
which might be expected from warrantable and necessary
separations are lost, without the compensation of a
rational and effective conjunction.
Purity of communion is endangered, persons are encouraged
to continue in connection with the most corrupt
churches, and the faithful testimony against errors and
abuses, with all consistent attempts to have them
removed or prevented, is held up to odium
and reproach, as dictated by bigotry, and as
tending to revive the old dissensions, and to
defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days
of peace which are anticipated under the reign
of mutual forbearance and charity.
And that was from Thomas McCree's Unity of
the Church, which is Presbyterian Heritage Publications reprint,
pages 106 to 118, and it's also free
under the free books section of Stillwater's Revival
Books webpage, www.swrb.com.
As you can see, it is not necessary
to quote a Covenanter to expose Mr. Bacon's
latitudinarian tendencies.
Those who boast of liberal forbearance are typically
most liberal in spewing out severe accusations upon
those who plead for true liberty of conscience.
It is an undoubted maxim of our tolerant
age that there are none so violently intolerant
as the so professedly tolerant man who contends
with those who are steadfast in the true
religion.
Their harshest criticism and sharpest intolerance is reserved
for those who have the courage to tell
them they are wrong.
It is one thing to recognize the relative
importance of fundamental and non-fundamental truth, and
quite another to say that the former are
the only truths which the Church of Christ
is bound to confess and require as a
profession at our communion table.
Mr. Bacon must recognize that truth is no
enemy to peace, and that human constitutions, when
agreeable to God's word, are no enemy to
liberty of conscience.
All the paths of the Lord are mercy
and truth unto such as keep his covenant
and his testimonies, Psalm 25.10. God alone
is the Lord of the conscience, and hath
left it free from the doctrines and commandments
of men which are in anything contrary to
his word, or beside it in matters of
faith or worship.
So that to believe such doctrines, or to
obey such commandments out of conscience, is to
betray true liberty of conscience, and the requiring
an implicit faith and an absolute and blind
obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and
reason also.
That's the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20,
Section 2.
The Apostles' Creed as a Term of Communion?
For the sake of further discussion, let us
conjecture that all Mr. Bacon requires for a
term of communion is a simple profession and
understanding of the Apostles' Creed.
Isn't that an historical document which is both
fallible and uninspired?
It sets forth the fundamental doctrines of the
Church of Christ in beautiful order and brevity,
but is it inspired?
Would Mr. Bacon actually use a fallible historical
document as a term of communion?
If he can use the Apostles' Creed, then
all his objections against our terms of communion
fall to the ground, and all his accusations
recoil upon his own head.
This historical creed teaches things agreeable to God's
word, though in every case they are uninspired
deductions from Scripture.
This one fact, the fact that the Apostles'
Creed is not inspired, completely overthrows Mr. Bacon's
slanderous arguments.
Where can he run?
Does he plead for a deduction from Scripture
even more simple than the Apostles' Creed?
Whatever he chooses can be said to be
uninspired and fallible, short of repeating the Scriptures
word for word.
What should we ask if Mr. Bacon used
the Apostles' Creed or something like it as
his sole subordinate standard for admission to the
communion table?
Is it humanly composed?
Yes, man accurately deduced it from Scripture.
Does it qualify as a human addition in
composition?
Yes, it was written by man.
In its present form, it is of no
later date than the fourth century.
Is it historical and uninspired?
Yes.
Thus, even the Apostles' Creed could not qualify
as a subordinate standard for examination to come
to the Lord's Supper.
In fact, to be absolutely consistent with Mr.
Bacon's notions, no profession of faith in the
fallible, uninspired words of men could be used
to examine one who comes to the Lord's
Supper.
Is the Apostles' Creed the standard Mr. Bacon
uses for his terms of communion?
It is difficult to tell, given his present
state of confusion and inherent self-contradiction.
His officers have one standard, his members another,
and sadly his visitors have yet another.
For the pastors are become brutish, and have
not sought the Lord.
Therefore they shall not prosper, and all their
flock shall be scattered, Jeremiah 10.21. Again,
for Mr. Bacon to use the Apostles' Creed,
or any other humanly deduced creed, and then
to reject our terms of communion because they
are fallible, is to imply that his deduction
in his creed is infallible.
No matter which way he turns, he finds
himself in the popish camp and supping with
the whore of Babylon.
Whether he has failed to distinguish between the
visible and the invisible church, or whether he
lifts his own scriptural deductions to a level
of infallibility, he sits on the beast.
Either way, his argument is proved entirely erroneous.
Mr. Bacon's error lies in the fact that
he cannot seem to understand that uninspired deductions
are binding when they agree with the Word
of God.
If history is judged correctly, and is agreeable
to the truth of God's Word, then it
is reasonable and fair to require it as
a bond of agreement and a term of
communion.
The same goes for any uninspired and true
deduction from Scripture.
Truth is a binding term of communion in
whatever form it comes.
Does joining the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton,
PRCE, require implicit faith?
Mr. Bacon writes, The Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton has adopted this entire line of thinking
by the approach of, first accept the doctrine,
then you can understand it later.
But this is the very kind of implicit
faith required by Rome and condemned by our
confession.
They, the Stelites, assure us that we must
simply agree to it, that is, all their
subordinate standards, and they will explain to us
later what it says.
This is no difference in principle from the
Papist who explains to the Protestant, just come
home to Mother Church and accept her historic
footprints based upon history and argument as conditions
of fellowship.
We will explain all that this entails as
we think you have a need to know.
Here the PRCE is slanderously portrayed as requiring
implicit faith by requiring people to agree to
doctrine they don't yet understand.
Is this true?
First accept the doctrine, then understand it later.
Simply agree to it, and we will explain
it later.
That is what Mr. Bacon represents as our
view.
We have neither required nor asked such an
unlawful thing from any prospective member of our
church.
Membership in the PRCE is based upon a
simple, voluntary, sincere profession of faith, and this
is not to be confused with an examination
based upon our terms of communion.
Simple profession of faith precedes examination for communion,
and Mr. Bacon entirely confounds the long-standing
order of the Reformed churches when he attempts
to connect the two.
New converts are brought into the schoolhouse of
Christ, the visible church, to receive feeding and
instruction from good shepherds who make them ready
to partake worthily of the Lord's table.
These babes join the church and are baptized
in their simplicity, but must have their ignorance
removed so that they might be given the
understanding to communicate properly and worthily, remember and
discern the body and blood of the Lord.
This is done to protect them from their
own ignorance and to protect the congregation from
tolerating error and false doctrine around the Lord's
table.
How does one become a member of the
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, PRCE?
Samuel Rutherford describes the three primary prerequisites of
becoming a member of the PRCE.
Though the church have not a positive certainty
of the judgment of charity that they are
regenerated, so they be known, that is, so
long as they be known, one, to be
baptized, two, that they be free of gross
scandal, three, and profess that they be willing
hearers of the doctrine of the gospel.
Such a profession as giveth evidences to the
positive certainty of the judgment of charity of
sound conversion is not required to make and
constitute a true visible church.
In addition to these three prerequisites, we require
that prospective members agree not to speak publicly
or act scandalously contrary to the publicly professed
standards of the church, and we ask if
they are willing to abide by all lawful
rulings of the session of the PRCE.
This is all that is required to become
a member of the PRCE, a simple profession
of faith combined with a life free of
gross scandal and an agreement to endeavor not
to be publicly scandalous in the future.
We have had people become members of the
church within one or two weeks of their
professed conversion.
These babes are baptized, if necessary, brought under
the oversight of the session and nurtured by
the sound preaching of the word of God.
We have never asked anyone to agree to
something they do not yet understand, nor would
we ever counsel someone to accept a doctrine
before explaining it to them and giving them
a chance to compare our teaching to the
word of God.
By representing us in this light, Mr. Bacon
has shown how unacquainted he is with our
profession and practice.
As seems to be his practice, it appears
that he would rather not be confused by
the facts, so he simply invents his own
version of the story.
It is much easier to dupe the general
public with contrived stories than actually deal with
the reality of the situation, and Mr. Bacon
has evidently chosen this short-sighted approach.
His scandalous lies and distortions would have worked
well had we chosen not to answer.
Notwithstanding Mr. Bacon's own lack of integrity, I
would like to ask the reader another question.
In the PRCE membership process described above, which
typically takes 30 minutes or less, where did
we ask someone to agree to something or
to affirm something that they didn't believe?
We ask for a simple profession of faith
and an agreement to endeavor not to speak
or act contrary to the truths of God's
word as found in our subordinate standards.
Where do we require implicit faith?
On the contrary, we counsel all of our
members not to believe anything until they have
confirmed it by the alone infallible rule of
faith and practice, that is, God's word.
Francis Turgeon comments, On
account of the abuse of a thing, its
use is not to be given up.
Nor, if the pontifical tyranny should be avoided,
should we on that account pass over to
the other extreme of the confusion and anarchy
of the Anabaptists.
Rather, we must hold the mean of lawful
ecclesiastical and ministerial power between these two extremes.
And that's from the Institutes of Elenctic Theology,
Volume 3, page 281.
When we indicate that prospective members must not
speak or act contrary to the infallible word
of God and the fallible and subordinate standards
of our church, we are simply requiring them
to walk obediently up to their present degree
of light.
If someone should ignorantly, through inexperience or misunderstanding,
say or do something contrary to our standards,
they would be patiently taught the nature of
their error from God's holy word.
The membership requirements of the PRCE are exceedingly
simple and can be attested to by any
present member of our congregation.
Our membership requirements are no different than that
required of the Ethiopian eunuch, that is, simple
profession of faith, baptism, and freedom from gross
scandal.
Mr. Bacon, again, through his failure to do
his homework, has misrepresented both our belief and
practice.
One phone call would have kept Mr. Bacon
from his folly.
It seems he would rather assert his own
imagination than investigate our practice.
Next, each person who makes a simple profession
of faith has a right to the signs
and seals of the covenant of grace, that
is, baptism and Lord's Supper.
Because someone has a right to the signs
and seals of the covenant doesn't mean that
they are automatically qualified to enjoy those privileges.
God requires all professing Christians to meet certain
qualifications before they may lawfully partake of his
ordinances.
To illustrate, in Canada, assuming that a legitimate
government was ruling, each child who is born
within Canadian boundaries has a right to vote.
Though they possess the right to vote, they
cannot exercise that right until they meet the
qualifications of Canadian law.
When they turn eighteen years old, they may
then exercise their right.
Thus, a distinction is made between possessing a
right and exercising a right.
While little qualification is needed to possess a
right, more is required for its lawful exercise.
In the visible Church of Christ, membership involves
different privileges for which one must be duly
qualified.
To hear the word regularly preached does not
automatically qualify a person for baptism, nor does
being baptized automatically qualify a person to attend
the Lord's table.
Each privilege of the Church has its own
distinctive prerequisites.
Samuel Rutherford explains, Some be members of the
visible Church properly and strictly, such as are
admitted to all the seals of the covenant
and holy things of God.
Others are less properly, or in an inferior
degree, members of the visible Church, such as
are baptized and are ordinary hearers of the
word, but not admitted to the Lord's Supper.
Of old, the catechumenoi were such.
As there are degrees of citizens, some having
all the privileges of the city, and some
only right to some privileges, but not to
all three.
Some have right to all, and are most
properly, in the visible Church.
That's from Rutherford's do-right of Presbyteries, page
268.
What Rutherford just finished saying gives us an
important summary of the privileges of Church membership.
He explains that all members do not have
equal access to the signs and seals of
the covenant.
Some have a right to all privileges, while
others have a right to exercise all privileges.
I am saying the same thing as Rutherford,
but in slightly different terms.
Though we may possess the right to all
the privileges of the visible Church, by virtue
of our profession of faith, visible interest in
the covenant of grace, and freedom from visible
scandal, we are only entitled to exercise those
rights after we have met the visible qualifications
set down in the word of God.
George Gillespie makes the same distinction, remote right
versus proxeme, that is, nearest right.
There is jus ad rem and jus in
re.
There is a remote right, or right in
actu primo, that is, such a right, relation,
or habitude, as entitleth a person to such
a privilege or benefit to be enjoyed and
possessed by him when he shall be capable
and fit to enjoy it.
Such is the right of a minor to
his inheritance.
Such was the right of lepers of old
to their tents, houses, and goods when themselves
were put out of the camp, and might
not, during their leprosy, actually enjoy their own
habitations.
There is again a proxeme right, or a
right in actuo secundo, which rendereth a person
actually and presently capable of that thing which
he is entitled to.
What are the qualifications for baptism?
Qualification number one, profession of faith.
When a person becomes a member of the
church, he does so by simple profession of
faith.
The visible church, which is also catholic or
universal under the gospel, not confined to one
nation as before under the law, consists of
all those throughout the world that profess the
true religion together with their children, and is
the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the
house and family of God, out of which
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Those born within the church have, by their
birth, interest in the covenant, and therefore ought
to be baptized.
Visible profession of faith gives a visible interest
in the covenant of grace.
Not only those that do actually profess faith
in and obedience unto Christ, but also the
infants of one or both believing parents are
to be baptized.
Qualification number two, freedom from obstinate scandal, doctrinal
or practical.
Larger Catechism, that is, the Westminster Larger Catechism,
question number 166 asks, unto whom is baptism
to be administered?
Answer, baptism is not to be administered to
any that are out of the visible church,
and so strangers from the covenant of promise,
till they profess their faith in Christ and
obedience unto him.
But infants descending from parents, either both or
but one of them, professing faith in Christ,
that is, the parents, and obedience to him,
are in that respect within the covenant and
to be baptized.
Those who possess a visible right to the
covenant seal of baptism may immediately, by virtue
of their or their parents' visible, credible profession
and visible freedom from scandal, doctrinal and practical,
exercise that right and have the sign of
the covenant administered.
See Appendix F for an important qualification to
this statement.
Any known to be wolves, apostates, and heretics
do not qualify for this ordinance, while those
who in their simplicity profess obedience to Christ
may proceed.
In Aaron's Rod Blossoming, George Gillespie summarizes his
opponent's, that is, Mr. Prynne, argument as follows,
quote, Such as in all ages, yea, by
the very apostles themselves, have been deemed fit
to receive and could not be denied the
sacrament of baptism, ought to be, being baptized
and unexcommunicated and willing to communicate, admitted to
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
But in all churches from Christ's time to
the present, all external professors of Christ, even
carnal persons, quote, upon only a bare external
profession of faith and repentance, were deemed fit
to receive and were never denied the sacrament
of baptism.
Yea, saith he, we read in the very
apostles' times that a mere slight confession of
sin and profession of the Christian faith was
sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized.
Therefore, all external professors of Christ ought to
be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper.
And that's from Aaron's Rod Blossoming, page 226.
Note that Mr. Prynne's argument is also Mr.
Bacon's argument when he says, quote, Finally, Paul
teaches that females who have been baptized into
Christ are also communicant members of the church.
And that's from What Mean Ye by This
Service, appendix A.
Both Prynne and Bacon contend that all who
are baptized adults are entitled and qualified, by
virtue of their membership in the visible church,
to attend the Lord's Supper.
George Gillespie responds to Mr. Prynne and consequently
to Mr. Bacon as well, quote, I retort
the argument thus.
Such as have been deemed by the apostles
and by all well-constituted churches unworthy to
be admitted to baptism, ought also to be
deemed unworthy, though baptized, to be admitted to
the Lord's table.
But all known wicked and profane livers, how
able and willing soever to make confession of
the true Christian faith, have been by the
apostles and all well-constituted churches deemed unworthy
to be admitted to baptism.
Therefore, all known wicked and so forth, that
is, and profane livers, though baptized, ought to
be deemed unworthy to come to the Lord's
table.
And that's from Aaron's Rod Blossoming, page 226.
We see that Gillespie does not appreciate the
argument of Mr. Prynne or Mr. Bacon.
If simple profession of faith does not, in
and of itself, qualify a person for baptism,
then it certainly does not qualify a person
for the Lord's Supper.
Known heretics, wolves, and apostates are to be
kept from both ordinances, and elders are responsible
not to profane the covenant of God by
promoting or participating in a promiscuous admission to
either of its signs and seals.
Baptism differs from the Lord's Supper due to
the fact that a participant receives baptism passively
while at the table the participant eats, drinks,
and examines himself actively.
In the forthcoming section, we shall see that
this difference necessitates an enlargement of the qualifications
necessary for worthy participation at the Lord's Table.
What are the qualifications for admission to the
Lord's Table?
Like baptism, we possess the right to the
Lord's Supper by virtue of a visible, credible
profession of faith, giving us a visible interest
in the covenant of grace, and visible freedom
from scandal, both doctrinal and practical.
As in baptism, so also in the Lord's
Supper, any known to be wolves, apostates, or
heretics do not qualify for this ordinance.
The difference in qualification between the two ordinances
is due to the amount of knowledge required
to accomplish the necessary duties associated with worthily
partaking of the bread and wine.
The key difference between these two ordinances is
one of positive knowledge.
To exercise our right to attend the Lord's
Table, we must meet the necessary qualifications as
they are set down in the Scripture and
summarized in our confession of faith and catechisms.
In addition to requiring all the qualifications of
baptism, the additional qualifications necessary to attend the
Lord's Table can be broken into positive and
negative categories.
Regarding positive qualifications, qualification one, age and ability
to examine themselves, we are explicitly taught in
the Westminster Larger Catechism how God's two sacraments
differ.
Question 177.
Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the
Lord's Supper differ?
Answer.
The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper
differ in that baptism is to be administered
but once, with water, to be a sign
and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into
Christ, and that even to infants, whereas the
Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in
the elements of bread and wine, to represent
and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the
soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth
in Him, and that only to such as
are of years and ability to examine themselves.
Age.
But let a man examine himself, and so
let him eat of that bread, and drink
of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth
and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly
among you, and many sleep.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should
not be judged.
1 Corinthians 11.28.31 Those who are
not old enough to examine and judge themselves
obviously cannot meet the knowledge requirements necessary to
worthily partake.
If, as our larger catechism states, only such
as are of years and ability to examine
themselves may partake of the Lord's Supper, then
more than simple profession is required.
Very young children may make a simple, visible,
and credible profession of faith, while remaining unable
sufficiently to examine themselves, or to discern the
Lord's body to any significant degree.
God may reveal Himself to a child well
before He can articulate an accurate understanding of
the true religion.
Until He is able to visibly demonstrate His
understanding of the truth, no mere man ought
to presume what lies in his thoughts and
intentions.
This argument alone should eliminate the foolish practice
of the paedo-communion camp.
Those who contend for a simple profession if
they were consistent, God forbid, should be serving
the bread and wine to any child who
has made a simple profession of faith.
Sadly, there are many unfaithful church officers foolish
enough to abuse their children by admitting them
to this ordinance based upon a consistent application
of this deceptive principle.
Faithful officers who take their confession seriously would,
of course, more carefully attend to their duty.
George Gillespie mentions the three necessary categories—profession, knowledge,
and practice—to be examined by the elders of
the church, and that they who are the
ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries
of God ought to admit none to this
sacrament except such as are qualified and fit
so far as can be judged by their
profession, knowledge, and practice observed and examined by
the eldership, according to the rules of the
word, no human court being infallible, to have
part and portion in the communion of saints,
and to receive the seals of the covenant
of grace.
Gillespie adds, The eldership judgeth of words and
works, professions and practices.
By their fruits he shall know them.
Unless somebody desires to assert that an infant
can be judged by his profession, knowledge, and
practice prior to being able to speak or
understand human knowledge, we can be assured that
Mr. Gillespie and the writers of our church
standards were not proponents of paedo-communion.
Additionally, unless the reader wishes to equate Mr.
Bacon's direction to judge by simple profession of
the Ethiopian eunuch with Gillespie's direction to judge
by profession, knowledge, and practice, we can rest
assured that Mr. Bacon is not teaching the
same thing as Mr. Gillespie.
Ability.
Ability can be broken into two categories.
One, ability to properly prepare for the Lord's
Supper.
Ruling officers of the church have a sworn
duty to uphold their confession of faith and
catechisms by judging whether a prospective communicant can
properly prepare themselves to partake worthily.
If a person does not have the tools
to prepare for the job, how will they
ever get the task completed?
If a new convert cannot properly understand how
to make the proper preparations, how can we
as elders allow them to partake?
Love does not allow others to recklessly harm
themselves.
Should we allow our babes to use the
stove prior to proper instruction and examination?
How much more will our babes in Christ
be burnt by improper preparation at the Lord's
table?
In regard to such preparation necessary to come
to the Lord's Supper, the Westminster Larger Catechism
states in Question 171, how are they that
receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to
prepare themselves before they come unto it?
Answer, they that receive the sacraments of the
Lord's Supper are, before they come, to prepare
themselves thereunto by examining themselves of their being
in Christ, of their sins and wants, of
the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith,
repentance, love to God and the brethren, charity
to all men, forgiving those that have done
them wrong, of their desires after Christ and
of their new obedience, and by renewing the
exercise of these graces by a serious meditation
and fervent prayer.
These requirements lay no small task upon any
believer, never mind a new convert or young
adult.
The rulers of the Church have been ordained
to decide whether a prospective communicant is ready
to worthily partake, or whether more preparation is
required.
This duty, so seriously neglected in our present
day, is not optional, and God will surely
inquire of the lazy elders who shirk their
responsibilities.
Those elders reading this, who have become ensnared
in sessions that overtly shirk their sworn and
ordained responsibilities, should fall to their knees in
fear and repentance for so poorly ruling the
little ones of the Lord.
It were better for him that a millstone
were hanged about his neck and he cast
into the sea, than that he should offend
one of these little ones.
2.
Ability to discern the Lord's body.
The larger Catechism further elaborates concerning those who
come to the Lord's Supper.
Question 174.
What is required of them that receive the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the time
of the administration of it?
Answer.
It is required of them that receive the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that during the
time of the administration of it, with all
holy reverence and attention, they wait upon God
in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements
and actions, heedfully discern the Lord's body, and
affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and
thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise
of their graces, in judging themselves and sorrowing
for sin, in earnest hungering and thirsting after
Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of
his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in
his love, giving thanks for his grace, in
renewing of their covenant with God, and love
to all the saints.
Question 175.
What is the duty of Christians after they
have received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper?
Answer.
The duty of Christians after they have received
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is seriously
to consider how they have behaved themselves therein,
and with what success, if they find quickening
and comfort, to bless God for it, and
beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses,
fulfill their vows, and encourage themselves to a
frequent attendance on that ordinance.
But if they find no present benefit, more
exactly to review their preparation to and carriage
at the sacrament, in both which, if they
can approve themselves to God and their own
consciences, they are to wait for the fruit
of it in due time.
But if they see they have failed in
either, they are to be humbled, and to
attend upon it afterwards with more care and
diligence.
We see immediately, upon reading the above-cited
catechism, that, according to the divines who wrote
it, an accurate discerning of the Lord's body
is a task quite beyond the ability of
a novice, though well within the reach of
a diligent seeker of truth.
According to larger catechism No.
174 and 175, simple profession of faith is
definitely not enough.
Here Mr. Bacon's assertions regarding the simple profession
of the Ethiopian eunuch violate his professed commitment
to uphold the Westminster Standards.
Prospective communicants who examine themselves worthily must possess
at least some knowledge of God's law and
the ability to make application of it to
their daily lives.
If they would hunger and thirst after Christ,
they must not hunger for a Christ of
their own devising.
Thus they must be instructed in the doctrine
of his person and work.
If they would feed on Christ by faith,
they must understand what faith is.
Those who trust in Christ's merit must understand
the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Those who rejoice in God's love must have
an orthodox concept of the Trinity.
Those who are to renew their covenant with
God, giving thanks for his grace, must understand
something of the covenants of redemption, works, and
grace.
One must come to the schoolhouse of Christ
to be nurtured upon the sincere milk of
the word before they can reasonably expect to
be ready to attend his table.
If an elder is to take the instruction
of the Westminster Larger Catechism seriously, he must
realize that these requirements are not simply suggestions.
Those who have sworn an oath to uphold
these standards as being agreeable to God's word
will be called to account for the violation
of their promise unless they repent and begin
faithfully to examine their flock, judging whether or
not their beloved sheep are ready to partake
worthily.
Failure to examine diligently the profession, knowledge, and
practice of all prospective communicants displays neither love
nor watchfulness for their souls.
To leave it to the people to decide
for themselves is an abdication of duty, a
direct violation of ordination vows, and a profaning
of the covenant of God.
God will not hold him guiltless who is
found to be slothful in this regard.
This point in the six terms of communion
seems like a reasonable place to put something
about a personal profession of faith in Jesus
Christ.
After all, in Acts 8.37, that was
the only term of communion that Philip the
Evangelist seemed concerned to enforce.
Again, I would note that the Ethiopian eunuch
did not receive communion but was simply baptized
in Acts 8.36-38.
Does Mr. Bacon's doctrine accord with the Larger
Catechism he so strenuously insists he upholds?
Should everybody who professes faith in Jesus Christ
and is baptized be automatically admitted to the
Lord's table?
Was Philip the Evangelist concerned with enforcing a
personal profession of faith as the only term
of communion?
As we have seen, the answer to all
three of these questions is a resounding no.
Furthermore, Mr. Bacon's confusion continues when he states,
Paul teaches that females who have been baptized
into Christ are also communicant members of the
church.
This sentiment is both absurd and irresponsible.
A woman could theoretically be baptized within hours
after conversion and yet be in a state
of ignorance comparable to a very young covenant
child.
To allow her to come to the Lord's
table in this relatively high degree of ignorance
is contrary to Scripture, the confession of faith,
and the light of nature.
Significant knowledge and preparation are required to partake
worthily of the Lord's table, and baptism is
but one element of the preparatory qualification.
If the Ethiopian eunuch possessed the ability to
judge himself and properly discern the Lord's body,
he would then be examined, after joining a
particular church, by the elders administering the Lord's
supper.
Following a successful examination, he would be allowed
to partake.
The Scripture is silent about whether the eunuch
was ready or whether he ever partook of
the Lord's table.
Mr. Bacon's comments upon the communion principles of
Philip the Evangelist are based upon no discernible
evidence, and as such I judge them to
be nonsense.
Regarding negative qualifications, freedom from natural or sinful
ignorance in doctrine, and freedom from scandal in
doctrine or practice, Larger Catechism 173 asks, May
any who profess the faith and desire to
come to the Lord's supper be kept from
it?
Answer, Suches are found to be ignorant or
scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of faith and desire
to come to the Lord's supper may and
ought to be kept from that sacrament by
the power which Christ hath left in his
church, until they receive instruction and manifest their
reformation.
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 30, Section 8
states, Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as
they are unfit to enjoy communion with him,
so are they unworthy of the Lord's table,
and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while
they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,
or be admitted thereunto.
According to our church standards, those who are
too ignorant to properly judge themselves or discern
the Lord's body, as well as those who
obstinately violate God's law, are to be kept
from the communion table.
Therefore those like Mr. Bacon, who teach that
a simple profession of faith is all that
is required to come to communion, do not
believe the same doctrine as the men who
wrote our standards.
George Gillespie states, 1.
Are persons grossly ignorant able to examine themselves?
2.
Are drunken persons able to examine themselves?
3.
Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous, yea,
profane principles, who call evil good and pervert
Scripture to the defending of some gross sins,
are these able to examine themselves?
4.
Are those who are known that they had
never any work of the law upon their
conscience to convince or humble them, for by
the law is the knowledge of sin, able
to examine themselves?
If the answers be affirmative, then surely this
self-examination is not rightly apprehended what it
is.
If the answers be negative, then those who,
in their addresses to the Lord's table, are
found ignorant or presumptuous and unconvinced, and do
manifestly appear such, though they be not excommunicated
and being professed Christians and desiring the sacrament,
yet ought not to be admitted.
Additionally, Gillespie more clearly makes the distinction between
natural and sinful disability.
But where there is no disability in the
natural faculties, may not a sinful disability, which
a man hath drawn upon himself as ignorance,
drunkenness, corrupt and atheistical opinions, presumptuous excusing or
defending of sin, make him unable to examine
himself?
Shall men that are unable to examine themselves
be admitted to the sacrament because not disabled
by any natural disability?
Sure, this was far from Paul's thoughts when
he delivered that rule concerning examining ourselves before
the sacrament.
Whoever they be who are unable to examine
themselves, whether naturally or sinfully, much more they
who manifestly appear unwilling to examine themselves, if
they be admitted and allowed to come to
the Lord's supper, it is a high and
heinous profanation of that ordinance.
Earlier, when Mr. Bacon directly implied that the
Ethiopian eunuch's scandal-free profession of faith, which
qualified him for baptism, was also enough to
qualify him for communion, he ignored the scriptural
and catechetical requirements that bar those who are
too ignorant from partaking worthily of the Lord's
table.
If a simple profession of faith and freedom
from scandal are all that's required, then what
could our standards possibly mean by the word
ignorant?
What do the scripture, confession and catechisms mean
when they instruct elders to keep the ignorant
person from sinning against the body and blood
of Christ?
Has the PRCE required more than the word
of God, or is Mr. Bacon unfaithfully requiring
far less?
What did the reformers mean by such as
are found to be ignorant in larger catechism?
That is Westminster larger catechism question 173.
If we as elders intend to take our
confession of faith and catechism seriously, and who
would dare say that we should not take
our vows seriously, we must come to an
historical and contextual understanding about what the writers
of our standards originally meant by the word
ignorant.
To ascertain the true meaning and original intent
of these writers, we must examine the history
of their doctrine and practice.
Only then can we shed much-needed light
upon the original meaning of this concept.
1.
Alexander Henderson, Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly,
writes, All baptized persons, when they come to
age and discretion, are not admitted to the
Lord's table, but such only as either upon
examination are found to have a competent measure
of knowledge in the principles of religion, do
profess that they are believers, and do live
unblameably, or coming from another congregation, bring with
them sufficient testimony that they are such, or
are otherwise well known and approved.
We glean from this that the Scottish Church
of the Second Reformation required what Henderson called
a competent measure of knowledge in the principles
of religion, and that even those who have
come to age and discretion are not to
be automatically allowed to come to the Lord's
table.
Unless Mr. Bacon wishes to call a simple
profession a competent measure of knowledge in the
principles of religion, he must admit that he
and Henderson believed different things regarding terms of
communion.
2.
In the winter of 1644 and 45, the
Westminster Assembly was occupied with the issues relating
to the directory for church government.
The matter of the jurisdiction of church courts
and the extent of their respective powers developed
into a debate which resulted in the direct
discussion of our present question.
What did the Westminster Assembly deem to be
competent knowledge, or to put it another way,
how did they define the terms ignorant and
scandalous in relation to the prospective communicant's admission
to the Lord's table?
William Beveridge explains, Just before the directory, that
is, the directory for church government, was completed,
the Assembly resolved to petition Parliament.
The result of this first petition was that
the House of Commons required a detailed enumeration
of everything included under the terms ignorant and
scandalous.
The Assembly, in reply, declared that no one
should be admitted to communion without a competent
understanding of the doctrines of the Trinity, of
the Deity, of the state of man by
his creation and by his fall, of redemption
by Jesus Christ and the means to apply
Christ in all his benefits, of the necessity
of faith, repentance, and a godly life, of
the nature and use of the sacraments, and
of the condition of man after this life.
Upon this, the House of Commons wished to
know what was meant by a competent understanding.
The Assembly at once replied, On March 27,
1645, the House of Commons made their request
to the Westminster Assembly as follows, Resolved, etc.,
that it be referred to the Assembly of
Divines to set down, in particular, what they
conceived to be such a competent measure of
understanding concerning the state of man by creation
and by his fall, the redemption by Jesus
Christ, the way and means to apply Christ
and his benefits, the nature and necessity of
faith, repentance and a godly life, the nature
and use of the sacraments, and the condition
of man after this life, without which none
shall be admitted to the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper.
Alexander Mitchell adds an interesting historical account of
what followed the House of Commons' request.
This they, that is, the Westminster Divines, did
without delay, and brought up on the 1st
of April, 1645, that terse statement which on
the 17th of April, 1645, was substantially passed
by the Houses and embodied in their subsequent
ordinance, which was October 20, 1645, and is
cited below, and soon after made the basis
of various catechisms intended to prepare the catechumens
for communion.
What follows is substantially the advice given by
the Westminster Assembly in answer to the question
of what knowledge is necessary to constitute a
competent understanding for prospective communicants to be admitted
to the Lord's Table.
This is the clearest extant commentary of what
the Assembly of Divines meant by the term
ignorant as it is used by the Westminster
Standards.
And this is a long quote.
April 17, 1645.
Prayers.
According to the former order, the Grand Committee
of the whole House proceeded to the further
consideration of the business concerning such as are
not to be admitted to the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper.
Mr. Whittaker called to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
Ordered that the report concerning the Prince-Elector
be made on Tuesday next.
Mr. Whittaker reports from the Grand Committee the
votes passed the Committee concerning such ignorant and
scandalous persons as are not to be admitted
to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Resolved, etc., that an incestuous person appearing to
be such, upon just proof, shall not be
admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Resolved, etc., that an adulterer appearing to be
such, upon just proof, shall not be admitted
to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
That a fornicator appearing to be such, upon
just proof, shall not be admitted to the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
That a drunkard appearing to be such, upon
just proof, shall not be admitted to the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
That a profane swearer or cursor appearing to
be such, upon just proof, shall not be
admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
That one hath taken away the life of
any person maliciously, appearing to be such, upon
just proof, shall not be admitted to the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Resolved, etc., that whosoever shall blasphemously speak or
write anything of God, His holy word, or
sacraments, shall, upon just proof thereof, not be
admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Resolved, etc., that they have not a competent
measure of understanding concerning the state of man
by creation and by his fall, who do
not know that God created man after his
own image in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness,
that by one man sin came into the
world, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned, that thereby they are all dead in
trespasses and sins, and are by nature the
children of wrath, and so are liable to
eternal death the wages of every sin.
Resolved, etc., that they have not a competent
measure of understanding concerning the redemption by Jesus
Christ, who do not know that there is
but one mediator between God and man, the
man Christ Jesus, who is also, overall, God
blessed forever, neither is there salvation in any
other, that He was conceived by the Holy
Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary, that
He died upon the cross to save His
people from their sins, that He rose again
from the third day from the dead, ascended
into heaven, sits at the right hand of
God, and makes continual intercession for us, of
whose fullness we receive all grace necessary to
salvation.
This concludes tape two of the Protestant Antidote
to Modern Schismatical Disunity, being chapter four of
Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
Contemporary Schismatics.
Please note, again, that this entire work is
free on Stillwater Revival Books' website, www.swrv
.com.
It is also available in hardcover from Stillwater's,
along with a treasure trove of the finest
Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in
the world today.
Stillwaters can be reached at area code 780
-450-3730, or by email at swrv at
swrv.com.
Again, these tapes are not copyrighted, and we
therefore encourage you to copy and distribute them
to any and all you believe would be
benefited.