Our controversy with the Papists turns on these
hinges.
First, they contend that the form of the
Church is always apparent and observable.
Secondly, they set this form in the seat,
that is, the seat of authority, of the
Roman Church and its hierarchy.
We, on the contrary, affirm that the Church
can exist without any visible appearance, and that
its appearance, that is, when it is broadly
visible to men, is not contained within that
outward magnificence which they foolishly admire.
Rather, it has quite another mark, namely, the
pure preaching of God's Word and the lawful
administration of the sacraments.
They rage if the Church cannot always be
pointed to with the finger.
But among the Jewish people, how often was
it so deformed that no semblance of it
remained?
What form do we think it displayed when
Elijah complained that he alone was left?
How long after Christ's coming was it hidden
without form?
Hello, I'm Larry Berger.
In this quote from the prefatory address to
King Francis in his Institutes of the Christian
Religion, the great reformer and systematizer of the
faith, John Calvin, sets forth clearly the classical
Protestant doctrine of the Church.
On this tape, you'll be hearing what I
believe is the best exposition of this critical
doctrine penned by any modern writer, and perhaps
by any writer ever.
In the hopes of making your listening more
profitable, and to enable you to see something
of the vital nature of this teaching to
the Christian religion, I'd like to demonstrate briefly
the importance of this doctrine, and press home
some applications of it to our walk with
the Lord Jesus Christ.
As we see in the above quote, Calvin
is contrasting the views of Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism concerning the nature of the Church.
Charles Hodge, though he ought to be avoided
in many areas, does a fine job of
explaining this contrast.
He states, At the time of the Reformation,
it was constantly urged against the Protestants that
they were bound to obey the Church.
To this they replied that the Church to
which the obedience of the faithful is due
was not the Romish or any other external
organization, for they had all departed from the
faith and taught for doctrines the commandments of
men.
To this the Romanists rejoined that if that
were true, the Church had perished, for no
organized visible society could be pointed out which
professed the doctrines avowed by Protestants.
To this again the Reformers replied that the
perpetuity of the Church, that is, the continual
existence of the Church throughout all ages which
Christ promised, which all parties admitted, did not
require the continued existence of any such society.
The Church might exist and at times had
existed in scattered believers.
Calvin says, and here Hodge gives the above
quote from Calvin, Hodge goes on to say
that, Calvin thus called this teaching one of
the cardinal doctrines of Protestants, that the Church
may be perpetuated in scattered believers, or in
other words, that the apostasy of every visible
organized society from the true faith is consistent
with the perpetuity of the Church.
So why then is this cardinal doctrine of
Protestantism so important?
How does it practically affect our walk with
Christ?
Because confusion on this issue brings with it
grave consequences which imperil our souls and undermine
the unity and purity of Christ's Church.
For example, consider the words of the Westminster
Confession of Faith, chapter 25, section 2, where
it says that outside of the visible Church
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
As we'll see, and as is clear from
the context, the confession simply means that a
profession of the Christian religion is necessary in
order for there to be an ordinary possibility
of salvation, and that this profession alone is
what makes one a member of the visible
Church.
Professing the Islamic religion, for instance, does not
allow for such a possibility.
Modern so-called Protestants, however, pervert the confession
on this point, and thereby are dangerously close
to promoting the damnable Roman error of substituting
the organized visible Church as another mediator between
God and man.
The Roman Church, as Hodge alludes, asserts that
outside of joining its organized visible society there
is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Thus, Stephen Pribble, a minister in the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church, confusedly asserts in his essay, Is
Church Membership Optional?, the following, quote, But
certainly such a case is the exception rather
than the rule.
That is why the confession uses the word
ordinary.
Outside the Church there is no ordinary possibility
of salvation, close quote.
I would therefore direct a word of brotherly
rebuke to pastors and elders like Mr. Pribble,
who clearly do not understand the teaching of
the very confession of faith they vowed to
uphold.
Gentlemen, how can you regard yourselves faithful as
overseers of Christ's flock when you are perjured
in your ordination vows?
This very confession states that we are, quote,
To avouch nothing but what we are fully
persuaded is the truth, close quote, chapter 22,
section 3.
If you don't understand this and other confessional
teachings, then you have sworn falsely.
And if you do understand the true meaning
of the confession on this matter, how can
you remain in denominations where this cardinal doctrine
of Protestantism is perverted and overthrown?
Are you even bringing charges against those who
teach thus falsely and who are themselves perjured?
If not, why do you hypocritically insist that
Christ's sheep should submit to you in the
Lord, thereby submitting themselves to dangerous error?
The chief shepherd, to the contrary, commands, quote,
Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that
causeth the heir from the words of knowledge,
Proverbs 19.27. Christ's faithful sheep must not
and will not sit under your teaching and
oversight until such time as you show yourselves
to be competent in your understanding and faithful
in your application of true Protestant doctrine, instead
of being those who rend the unity of
the church with deadly errors.
Finally, then, I exhort all my brethren who
are sitting under such leaders.
It is true, as Mr. Pribble asserts, that
joining ourselves to a faithful organized church, if
one can be found, is not optional, Hebrews
13.17. It is equally true, and an
unavoidable deduction from this biblical command, that refusing
to join an unfaithful organized church is also
not optional.
If we sit ourselves under leadership who either
do not understand the cardinal doctrines of Protestants,
or, worse yet, who understand such doctrines but
refuse to act accordingly, we are not putting
ourselves in the path of Christ's blessings, but
in the way of His judgments.
As He says, Let them alone, they be
blind leaders of the blind, and if the
blind lead the blind, both shall fall into
the ditch.
Matthew 15.14 It is our responsibility to
judge our leaders and their doctrine by the
word of God, and to submit only to
such as are found sound and faithful, for
we are to submit ever and only in
the Lord.
God alone is the Lord of the conscience.
The Confession, Chapter 20, Section 2 Our kind
Heavenly Father has preserved for us the faithful
expositions of His word in the writings of
our Protestant forefathers.
Let us give careful heed, then, as Greg
Barrow sets before us their scriptural teachings, to
the end that both erring elders and flocks,
as well as those who in obedience to
Christ reject such dangerous leaders, may know the
truth, that the truth may set us free.
The classical Protestant doctrine of the Church, being
Chapter 2 of Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted
Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics Misrepresentation No.
2 The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton denounces
true churches and maintains that they are the
only duly constituted church upon the face of
the earth.
In his defense departed, Mr. Bacon asserts, The
Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton's session do not
believe themselves compelled to answer in any church
court, for they have, in their exaggerated opinion,
the only truly constituted church court to be
found upon the face of the earth today.
See Letter of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
Clerk of Session and Brian Schwartley's warning.
And again, the error into which you have
fallen is serious, and until you come out
of the little group which claims that they
alone, of all the inhabitants of the earth,
have a true constitutional church, you will continue
attached to the dead body of human tradition.
Mr. Bacon's charges are scandalously unqualified.
When one reads such unqualified statements as, They
have, in their exaggerated opinion, the only truly
constituted church court to be found upon the
face of the earth today, or, until you
come out of the little group which claims
that they alone, of all the inhabitants of
the earth, have a true constitutional church, often
there is a very natural inclination to an
intensely negative response.
This language represents us as thinking very highly
of ourselves and very poorly of others, and
is designed to lead the injudicious reader to
substitute passion for reasoned judgment.
Disaccomplished, it is then very unlikely that the
reader will notice that the statements of Mr.
Bacon are entirely unqualified.
What does he mean by true constitutional court,
or true constitutional church?
Does he mean constitutionally true as to the
being of the church, or constitutionally true as
to the well-being of the church?
Shouldn't he define what he means before publicly
making such a serious accusation?
Instead, he begins and ends his defense-departed
without ever qualifying these terms.
He leaves it to the imagination and emotion
of the reader to wonder whether the PRCE
thinks they are the only Christian church on
earth.
These unqualified statements are a telling example of
what Mr. Bacon has asked the public to
digest.
By not defining the terms in his accusations,
he has asked his readers to swallow his
unannounced assumptions with a certain degree of implicit
faith.
Because of Mr. Bacon's serious disregard for these
relevant qualifications, and because some may have been
beguiled into believing this false report concerning us,
I believe it would be most prudent to
first inform the reader of our disposition toward
those brethren who disagree with us.
Following that, I will proceed with a direct
response to these erroneous charges.
Our Disposition Toward Those Who Disagree With Us
On the 7th of May, 1741, the Mount
Herrick Declaration was published after receiving sanction from
the Correspondences and General Meeting of the United
Societies.
The spirit of our covenanted brethren echoes our
own sentiments and disposition toward those of our
brethren who differ from us.
We declare our esteem of and love for
all the godly in these lands who have
the root of the matter in them, and
love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, who
are studying godliness and have sad hearts for
the tokens of God's sad displeasure, and the
sins and abominations procuring the same, notwithstanding of
their not being of the same sentiments and
mind with us as to some parts of
our testimony and practice.
And that's cited from Matthew Hutcheson, the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in Scotland.
We have neither stated nor do we believe
that those who profess the true religion and
their children, the visible church universal, are only
those who agree with us on every point
of doctrine or practice.
We do, however, fully concur with our confession
of faith, which states, Saints by profession are
bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion
in the worship of God, and in performing
such other spiritual services as tend to their
mutual edification, as also in relieving each other
in outward things according to their several abilities
and necessities, which communion, as God offereth opportunity,
is to be extended unto all those who,
in every place, call upon the name of
the Lord Jesus.
That's the confession of faith, chapter 26, section
2.
In the universal visible church, there are many
true sons and daughters of God who have
never even considered some of the questions we
are now disputing.
We fully concur with Pastor David Steele when
he says, Yes, unto them which believe, Christ
is precious, and I never questioned that he
is so to multitudes who never heard of
the British covenants.
But I grieve when these are lightly called
the old covenants by those under the obligation
of them.
And that's from David Steele's Reminiscences.
We in the PRCE love all the brethren
who will not obstinately and willfully speak or
act contrary to the truth of God's word,
with an approving love that is desirous of
intimate Christian communion.
We also love those who call themselves brethren,
who willfully and obstinately speak or act contrary
to the truly professed religion, with a love
of benevolence that is desirous of their correction
and restoration to the truth.
We love all men as they are created
in God's image, with a love of benevolence,
desiring their regeneration and conversion in Christ by
the grace of God.
We have no desire to condemn the innocent
or acquit the guilty, and so, according to
God's holy will, we must make every attempt
to speak the truth in love.
While we endeavor to steer clear of indiscriminate
censure of those guilty of defection, we at
all times must pray for the resolve and
perseverance to speak clearly against the sins of
the day.
Recognizing that all beloved believers have one and
the same God and Father, we must also
at the same time never become slack in
distinguishing between truth and heresy in doctrine and
faithfulness and defection in practice.
If, for the sake of peace, we are
indifferent to heresy, or if, out of a
false sense of love, we fail to correct
the scandalous, we directly dishonor our Savior and
suffer our neighbor to remain either ignorantly or
obstinately in sin.
It is simply because we love both our
Savior and our brethren that we have adopted
the position of our faithful forefathers, as it
is agreeable to the alone, infallible standard of
God's word.
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine
heart.
Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor,
and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge
against the children of thy people, but thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19, 17 and 18 All saints that
are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by
His Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with
Him in His graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and
glory.
And being united to one another in love,
they have communion in each other's gifts and
graces, and are obliged to the performance of
such duties, public and private, as to conduce
to their mutual good, both in the inward
and outward man.
That's the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 26,
section 1.
This is the temper of earnest Christians who
appreciate the gift of God in others.
When our brethren speak truly, act faithfully, and
make righteous rulings, we rejoice in the truth.
When a credible Christian profession is joined with
faithful contending, we thank God for His mercy
upon His children.
Undeniably, Mr. Bacon's heated and unwarranted attacks have
quenched the expression of love once shared by
his congregation and ours, and it is my
hope that a way can be found to
overcome this obstacle.
We pray that God would bring to the
remembrance of all contending parties that which we
once enjoyed in each other, and that even
through these disagreements, God would grant us the
grace to hold out hope for reconciliation.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, but when
the desire cometh, it is a tree of
life.
Proverbs 13, 12 Though the PRCE is presently
isolated from many independent congregations and denominations, though
not from the Universal Visible Church, we long
for the communion and fellowship that only true,
like-minded Christian unity can produce.
We long for the day of reconciliation and
agreement, a day when our present divisions will
be healed and our protests will become unnecessary.
Our prayer and our contending is for a
covenanted Protestant unity of national Presbyterian churches who
would work together to rule the Universal Visible
Church of Christ in truth, and we believe
that this cause is most consistent with the
biblical love of our Triune God towards mankind.
And it shall come to pass in the
last days that the mountain of the Lord's
house shall be established in the top of
the mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.
Isaiah 2, verse 2 I have set watchmen
upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never
hold their peace, day nor night.
Ye that make mention of the Lord keep
not silence, and give him no rest till
he establish, until he make Jerusalem a praise
in the earth.
Isaiah 62, verses 6 and 7 Please do
not be fooled by Mr. Bacon's misrepresentations.
Our love for the brethren is both sincere
and genuine.
Please judge us according to our own words,
and not according to the words and motives
falsely imputed to us by Mr. Bacon and
others.
Having cleared our disposition toward others, I will
now proceed directly to the issue at hand.
Does the PRCE denounce true churches and maintain
that it is the only duly constituted church
upon the face of the earth?
Introductory Remarks Unless one is so naive as
to think that every man who calls himself
a minister is truly a minister of Christ,
or that every group of people that call
themselves a church is actually a true church,
then one is left to discern which ministers
and churches are true and which are false.
Repeatedly, our Lord warned the church to beware
of wolves in sheep's clothing and schismatic heretics
who would come into the church of God
to deceive the simple and to cause division.
To testify openly against error is a moral
and perpetual obligation binding upon all faithful churches
and ministers.
In so doing, they are fulfilling their primary
function as disciples of Christ by witnessing for
the truth and contending against error.
As one approaches this delicate topic, it becomes
clear, even at the most early stages of
investigation, that sweeping generalizations must give way to
careful and precise distinctions.
Seeing that the PRCE has been charged with
denouncing true churches and claiming to be the
world's only truly constituted church, an obvious question
arises.
What does Mr. Bacon mean by true churches
or truly constituted churches?
What distinctions, if any, is he making when
he uses these terms?
Does he mean that we are denouncing true
churches as to their essence or being, or
does he mean we are denouncing true churches
as to their well-being?
Is he saying that we profess to be
the only Christian church in the world, or
is he charging us with something else?
Mr. Bacon's only serious attempt at qualification appears
when he quotes the 18th chapter of the
1560 Scottish Confession of Faith and one sentence
from Samuel Rutherford's The Due Right of Presbyteries.
He concludes from these two quotations that, Hereby,
he implies that the PRCE's understanding of the
true church differs significantly from that of Rutherford
and the 1560 Scottish Confession of Faith.
To clear up Mr. Bacon's ambiguity and error,
I intend to prove from the above-mentioned
quotation that Samuel Rutherford was talking about a
true church as to its being, while the
1560 Scottish Confession of Faith was talking about
a true church as to its well-being.
Next, I intend to prove that each of
these sources, taken in their proper context, agree
precisely with the doctrine of the PRCE.
Please note carefully, Mr. Bacon's primary assumption and
error is exhibited when he asserts that the
church of Christ essentially considered is to be
defined by three marks, that is, the true
preaching of the word, the right administration of
the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered.
I contend that the true visible church of
Christ essentially considered is to be defined by
one single mark, that is, the profession of
the true religion.
Much, therefore, depends upon who is correct in
answering the following question.
What marks are essential to the being of
the visible church?
When Mr. Bacon's error in answering this question
is exposed, his one foundation stone concerning the
visible church is removed, and his whole house
of misrepresentations comes tumbling down.
The doctrinal position of the PRCE regarding the
being and the well-being of the church
as it relates to the term true church.
One mark alone is sufficient to constitute an
essentially true visible church, the profession of the
true religion.
We use this mark to distinguish between a
Christian church and a non-Christian church.
There is an important distinction to be made
between the being, or esse, of a church
and its well-being, bene esse.
Dear reader, please always keep this distinction in
mind or you will fail to understand both
the scriptures and the reformers and the men
of the PRCE on this vital matter.
What is necessary to the being of a
true church is something considerably different from what
is necessary to its well-being.
Since the term true church can be applied
to both its being and well-being, it
is absolutely imperative to qualify which true church
one is referring to, especially when making public
charges.
Speaking of a true church as being essentially
true tells us that a church is Christian,
as opposed to pagan, while speaking of a
true church relative to its well-being tells
us whether a particular Christian church is being
faithful to God's word.
While the former distinguishes between the church and
the world, the latter distinguishes between the faithful
and the unfaithful churches among those bodies which
profess Christianity.
James Bannerman explains, Quote, We recognize this distinction
every day in regard to a Christian man,
and it is no less to be recognized
in its application to Christian society.
There is many a doctrine and truth of
revelation in regard to which a man may
err without ceasing on that account to be
a Christian man, and there may be many
a duty recognized in Scripture as binding upon
all in which he may be totally deficient
without forfeiting his Christianity.
In other words, there is much in doctrine
and duty, in faith and practice necessary to
the perfection of a believer which is not
necessary to the existence of a believer as
such, and so it is with a Christian
church.
What is essential to its existence as a
church is something very different from what is
essential to its perfection as a church.
This distinction is of considerable value and not
difficult under the teaching of Scripture to be
applied.
We read in Scripture that the Christian church
is the pillar and ground of the truth,
and that for this cause the Son of
God Himself came that He might bear witness
to the truth.
In other words, we learn that the very
object for which the church of Christ was
established on the earth was to declare and
uphold the truth.
Judging then by this first test, we are
warranted in saying that to hold and to
preach the true faith or doctrine of Christ
is the only sure and infallible note or
mark of the Christian church because this is
the one thing for the sake of which
a church of Christ has been instituted on
earth.
A true faith makes a true church, and
a corrupt faith a corrupt church, and should
it at any time apostatize from the true
faith altogether, it would by the very act
cease to be a church of Christ in
any sense at all.
The church was established for the sake of
the truth and not the truth for the
sake of the church.
For this thing, then, the church of Christ
was instituted, and this thing, or the declaration
of the truth, must therefore be in its
nature and importance paramount to the church itself.
Again we read in Scripture that Christ gave
some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists
and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ.
In other words, we learn that ordinances and
office-bearers have been established for the object
of promoting the well-being and edification of
the church.
These things, then, that is, the ordinances and
ministry, unlike the former, that is, the truth,
were instituted for the sake of the church
and not the church for the sake of
them.
And these things, that is, the ordinances and
the ministry, therefore must be in their nature
and importance subordinate to the church.
And that's from the Church of Christ, Volume
1.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, Section
2, defines an essentially true church as having
one mark, that is, the profession of the
true religion.
The idea that there is one mark that
alone distinguishes the being of a church from
its well-being is clearly and plainly taught
in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where it
states, 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.
That's the Confession, Chapter 25, Section 2.
Likewise, the larger catechism, Question 62, questions, What
is the visible church?
Answer, The visible church is a society made
up of all such as in all ages
and places of the world do profess the
true religion, and of their children.
Notice that the only mark mentioned as necessary
for the existence or being of a true
visible church is the profession of the true
religion.
According to the Westminster Divines, this is the
single mark that distinguishes Christian churches from pagan
churches.
By using this mark, we can determine whether
a body of people meeting together for worship
are to be considered Christian in any sense.
The Reformers, by applying this single mark to
the Roman Catholic Church, called her a true
church as to essence or being, and correctly
distinguished her from the Turks or pagans.
For example, commenting on Jeremiah 15, verse 16,
John Calvin writes, Quote, The name of God
is indeed called indiscriminately on all who are
deemed His people.
As it was formerly given to the whole
seed of Abraham, so it is at this
day conferred on all who are consecrated to
His name by holy baptism and who boast
themselves to be Christians and the sons of
the church, and this belongs even to the
papists.
That's from Calvin's commentaries.
Another excellent Reform scholar, Francis Turretin, defines the
essentially true church, esse, as having one mark,
that is, the profession of Christianity and gospel
truth.
Quote, The church of Rome can be regarded
under a twofold view, either as it is
Christian with regard to the profession of Christianity
and of gospel truth which it retains, or
papal with regard to subjection to the Pope
and corruptions and capital errors in faith as
well as morals, which she has mingled with
and built upon those truths besides and contrary
to the word of God.
We can speak of it in different ways.
In the former respect, we do not deny
that there is some truth in it, but
in the latter, under which it is regarded
here, we deny it can be called Christian
and apostolic, but anti-Christian and apostate.
And that's from Turretin's Institutes of Elanctic Theology,
Volume 3.
Here the church of Rome, which retains the
single mark, a profession of gospel truth, is
designated a true church when compared to pagans.
Turretin, like Calvin, is saying that in the
Roman Catholic Church there remains a possibility of
salvation which is not true in a pagan
group, and in this sense he is willing
to call them a Christian church, a true
church essential or a truly constituted church.
On the other hand, Turretin makes it clear
that when he considers the Catholic Church as
papal, he designates her a false church and
anti-Christian.
Notice here that by distinguishing between the being
and well-being of the church of Rome,
Turretin calls them a true church as to
being and a false church as to well
-being at the same time.
It is significant to recognize this point which
to some seems like a contradiction throughout the
writings of the Reformers.
A true church can, at the same time,
be considered true in one sense while false
in another.
In this case, Turretin is saying that though
the Romish Church is essentially Christian, esse, it
has strayed so far from its Christian foundation
that it must be called false, bene esse.
Samuel Rutherford defines the essentially true church as
having only one mark, that is, the profession
of the truth and doctrine of godliness.
Quote, A visible profession of the truth and
doctrine of godliness is that which essentially constitutes
a visible church and every member of the
visible church.
And that's taken from Rutherford's due right of
Presbyteries.
To properly examine what Samuel Rutherford meant by
this statement, we must do more than Mr.
Bacon when he simply cites one quote and
then boldly asserts that Rutherford agrees with him.
Mr. Bacon has asked us to believe that
Rutherford is in total agreement with the 18th
chapter of the Scottish Confession of Faith, while
the so-called Stealites are in disagreement with
both Rutherford and the Confession.
I believe and will establish that Samuel Rutherford
was in agreement with the 1560 Scottish Confession
of Faith, but for very different reasons than
Mr. Bacon sets forth.
Furthermore, I will demonstrate that he has grossly
erred regarding his doctrine of the church, primarily
because he does not understand the reformer's distinction
between the being and the well-being of
the church.
Consequently, this particular error will be shown to
be the foundation of the destructive misrepresentations set
forth in his defense departed.
Let's begin with what Rutherford and others do
not mean when they teach that a visible
profession of truth and doctrine of godliness is
that which essentially constitutes a visible church.
Number one, Rutherford shows that actual saving faith
is not necessary to the essence or being
of a true visible church.
Quote, That which is unseen is the form
and essence of an invisible church, and that
which is visible must be the essential form
of a visible church.
That's again from The Do-Right of Presbyteries.
A second quote, And whereas our divines say
that the church is invisible because faith which
is the specific and constitutive form of the
church is invisible, and known only to God,
That's from Rutherford's survey of the survey of
that sum of church discipline.
Two, Ministers, elders, and deacons are not necessary
to the essence or being of a true
visible church.
In 1646, an anonymous work entitled Just Divinum
Regimenus Ecclesiasticae or The Divine Right of Church
Government was published.
Its authorship is generally attributed to either Westminster
divines themselves, likely the London Covenanted Presbyterians, or
those who closely sympathized with them.
It is ironic that this book refutes its
own publisher, Naftali Press, who also publishes Bacon's
works, on this vital point, the very crux
of the controversy.
Quote, There are degrees of necessity.
Some things are absolutely necessary to the being
of a church as matter and form, that
is, visible saints and a due profession of
faith and obedience to Christ according to the
gospel.
Thus, it is possible a church may be
and yet want both deacons, elders, and pastors
too, yea, and word and sacraments for a
time.
Some things are only respectively necessary to the
well-being of a church.
Thus, officers are necessary, yet some more than
others, without which the church is lame, defective,
and miserably imperfect.
That's from The Divine Right of Church Government.
Three, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not
necessary to the essence or being of a
true visible church.
Quote, Abraham called with his house to leave
idolatry, obeyed the calling, building an altar to
the Lord, Genesis 12, 1-18, professes and
teaches as a prophet the doctrine of the
covenant, and God appearing revealed the gospel unto
him, Genesis 12, 1-3, and Genesis 15,
4-7.
And so, he and his house are a
visible church, when, not while, many years after,
and until he was ninety and nine, the
seal of circumcision was ordained and given to
him in his house, Genesis 17, verses 1
-3.
And that is from Samuel Rutherford's survey of
the survey of that sum of church discipline.
And again, another Rutherford quote, And the church
is a true visible church in the wilderness,
which yet wanted, that is, lacked, circumcision and
the Passover forty years in the wilderness.
Joshua 5, verses 5-7.
This proves that there is a true visible
church where Christ is and yet wanteth the
ordinary seals baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Again, from survey of the survey.
4.
Church discipline is not necessary to the essence
or being of a true visible church.
Quote, But a church may retain the essence
and being of a visible church and yet
have no discipline in actual use or little
and though want, that is, lack of discipline,
do leaven a church, yet it does not,
as Robinson says, evert the nature thereof and
turn it into Babylon and a den of
dragons.
That's from the do-right of Presbyteries.
To summarize, Rutherford and others do not make
actual saving faith, ministry, sacraments, or church discipline
necessary to the existence of a true church
essentially considered.
Why?
Because saving faith is the essence of the
essence of the invisible church and does not
pertain to the definition of the true visible
church and because ministry, sacraments, and discipline, while
necessary and profitable for the well-being of
the church, are not necessary to its existence
or being.
Seeing that Rutherford removes all of these things
from his definition of an essentially true church,
what is left to include?
One mark and one mark alone is necessary
to the definition of a true church, essa,
that is, Rutherford's profession of the truth.
Quote, A visible profession of the truth and
doctrine of godliness is that which essentially constitutes
a visible church and every member of the
visible church, from the do-right of presbyteries.
Again, quote, truth of doctrine concurs to give
being to the church and to the constitution
of it, from Rutherford's do-right of presbyteries.
Quote again, any sort of profession, whether by
an avowing of that gospel to one another
or suffering for it, even when the shepherds
are smitten and the flock is scattered, is
a very practical and speaking mark that such
a company is a true church, from Rutherford's
survey of the survey.
And finally, again, from survey of the survey,
and yet, if these may be, to wit,
hearing and profess receiving, here is an essential
mark by which persons before they receive seals
are made members and visible disciples and societies
visible and churches essentially differenced.
One, essentially differenced from all the false churches
visible upon the earth who have not the
sound of the word preached and professedly heard
and visibly received, and two, from all civil
societies, three, from all pagan and heathen societies
on earth.
Therefore, they were a distinct Christian society, differenced
essentially, and if they should all die before
they had been baptized or had received the
seals, they have been true visible disciples and
if killed for the truth, they had died
visible professing martyrs and the called Church of
Christ.
It is to be carefully observed that like
James Bannerman, the Westminster Divines, and Francis Turretin,
Samuel Rutherford also taught the distinction between the
being and the well-being of a true
church.
By one single mark, he distinguishes the true
church from false churches who have no profession
of the truth, from all civil societies, and
from all pagan societies on earth.
We can now confidently affirm that Rutherford's definition
of the essentially true church is exceedingly broad.
By his definition, there are many true churches
upon the earth.
Samuel Rutherford was simply saying that one mark
was necessary to distinguish an essentially true church
from a pagan church, which is precisely what
the PRCE is saying.
Strictly speaking, all that Scripture requires to constitute,
esse, a visible church, is the mark of
the truth, that is, possession of the true
doctrine of Christ, and enough of the fundamentals
of the true Christian religion to warrant a
possibility of salvation.
This is the minimal standard necessary for a
church to qualify as a true church as
opposed to a pagan church.
To illustrate this in practical terms, let us
consider how Rutherford applies his definition to the
Roman Catholic Church.
Speaking of the reason why the Reformers still
consider the baptism of Rome to be valid,
and therefore not to be repeated in a
Protestant church, Rutherford states, quote, because there, that
is, those in Rome who received an invalid
baptism by a midwife or a private person,
because their profession of that covenant whereof baptism
is a seal separates them sufficiently from infidels,
though they want or lack the seal external.
That's from the Due Right of Presbyteries.
Notice that Rutherford says that even those in
Rome who receive an invalid baptism by a
midwife or a private person do profess the
true covenant in such a way as to
separate them from infidels and pagans.
This is precisely the purpose of distinguishing between
the being and the well-being of the
church.
If we say that we receive the baptism
of Rome, then we must essentially receive the
ministry of Rome, which administers the baptism.
This is exactly what Rutherford concludes when he
says, quote, these have a ministry essentially entire
who have power under Christ to preach the
gospel and administer the sacraments, Matthew 28, 19.
The Romish priests have this and are called
to this by the church.
That's from the Due Right of Presbyteries.
John Robinson, Rutherford's independent opponent from New England,
objects, quote, how could England forsake the church
of Rome and forsake the ministry within the
church, as in the subject, especially seeing you
teach that a true ministry makes a true
church?
That was Rutherford citing him in the Due
Right of Presbyteries.
And Rutherford responds, England may well separate from
Rome, everting the fundamental parts of faith, and
not separate from Rome's baptism or ministry in
so far as they essentially be the ordinances
of Christ.
Rutherford is applying his doctrine exactly the same
way as Turretin, Calvin, and the divines of
the Westminster Assembly.
He teaches that one may lawfully separate from
a church that is essentially true as to
being when it is deformed as to its
well-being.
The reformers did not profess separation from the
true remnant of Rome, which professes the true
gospel, but from the papal part of Rome
that destroys the fundamentals of the truth.
Though the ministerial church of Rome still retained
an essentially true ministry and valid baptism, the
papal tyranny inseparably attached to it was like
a malignant tumor, and these reformers understood that
this true church, esse, was something to denounce
and avoid, lest they die amidst her corruption.
Is this not exactly what John Calvin is
teaching when he says, quote, However, when we
categorically deny to the papists the title of
the church, we do not for this reason
impugn the existence of churches among them.
Rather, we are only contending about the true
and lawful constitution of the church required in
the communion not only of the sacraments, which
are signs of profession, but also, especially, of
doctrine.
That's from Calvin's Institutes.
Mr. Bacon whines and complains that the PRCE
has, quote, used their forum to denounce true
churches and ministers of Christ.
As I have demonstrated, both the Church of
Rome and its ministry are considered true as
to essence by Calvin, Turretin, and Rutherford, yet
they counsel separation from both, warning others to
avoid their poison.
Does Mr. Bacon also say that Calvin, Turretin,
and Rutherford were using their forum to denounce
true churches and ministers when they taught separation
from Rome?
If not, then how is he justified in
making such an accusation about the PRCE for
saying that the Presbyterian Church in America, the
PCA, or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the OPC,
or Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, though true
churches as to essence, are to be avoided
and denounced?
My point is that the validity of Mr.
Bacon's charge entirely depends upon the meaning he
attaches to the phrase true church.
Without making the distinction between the being and
the well-being of the church, his charges
are meaningless and entirely ambiguous.
As it stands, these meaningless charges are a
source of mischief and stumbling for Christ's little
ones, who until now were likely unaware of
these critical distinctions.
If Mr. Bacon was aware of these distinctions,
I conclude that he was negligent and culpable
for not using them.
If he was ignorant of these distinctions, then
he must repent for slandering us in his
ignorance.
He is trapped between a rock and a
hard place with nowhere to turn.
Is Mr. Bacon ready to admit that his
charges are entirely unqualified and misleading?
There is no excuse for his making public
charges of this nature leading others astray without
carefully qualifying what he means.
The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, P.R
.C.E., unequivocally states that there are many
truly constituted churches essentially considered in the world.
I have shown by this first distinction that
one mark alone is sufficient to constitute an
essentially true visible church, that is, the profession
of the true religion.
This single mark is used to designate a
Christian church from a pagan church.
The P.R.C.E. unequivocally states that
the one remaining church calling itself the Presbytery
of the Reformation Presbyterian Church, that is, Bacon's
Church, is a truly constituted visible church as
to essence or being, as are particular Roman
Catholic, Arminian, or Baptist churches.
This applies equally to any other particular church
who essentially retains the profession of the truth.
Mr. Bacon's unqualified libel that the P.R
.C.E. thinks it is the only truly
constituted church in the world has led many
to believe that we are denominating all other
Christian churches except ourselves as non-Christian.
This is absolutely false and we can hardly
fathom how Mr. Bacon would dare utter such
unqualified folly.
Now that we have exposed Mr. Bacon's slander,
we shall see if he responds with repentance
or with simply more false rhetoric.
Let him demonstrate from anything we have written
or spoken that we have condemned every body
of Christians but ourselves as non-Christian or
let him be ashamed.
To date, he has simply acted mischievously and
irresponsibly by publicly making unqualified accusations invented by
an offended imagination.
And then quoting from James Rennick's informatory vindication,
we judge schismatic and pragmatic dividers of the
Church and wideners of the breaches thereof already
broken and divided and those who sow discord
among brethren and promote their contentions by invidious
reproaches or other ways are to be withdrawn
from.
Next, I would like to continue to prove
that Mr. Bacon is entirely wrong in his
assertion that Samuel Rutherford, who stated in his
classic work entitled The Do-Right of Presbyteries,
that, quote, a visible profession of the truth
and doctrine of godliness is that which essentially
constitutes a visible Church and every member of
the visible Church, was talking about the same
thing as the 18th chapter of the 1560
Scottish Confession of Faith.
Those things commonly called the notes or marks
of the Church, that is, the true preaching
of the word, the right administration of the
sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered, pertain to
the well-being of the Church or the
perfecting of the saints.
By these notes we distinguish between a truly
constituted visible Church being and a true Church
faithfully adhering to its lawful constitution, well-being.
We must distinguish between the things for which
the Church was instituted and the things that
have been instituted for the Church.
James Bannerman explains, quote, In the second place,
what are those things which, unlike the truth,
have been instituted for the sake of the
Church and not the Church for the sake
of them?
Such unquestionably are those ordinances, office-bearers, and
discipline which have been established within the Christian
society.
These being instituted for the advantage and edification
of the Church are, from their very nature,
subordinate and secondary to the truth for the
holding and publication of which both they and
the Church itself exist.
They may be necessary and are necessary for
the perfection of the Church, but they are
not necessary for its existence.
That's the Church of Christ, volume one.
And again, quoting Bannerman, But join to the
possession of the true faith the administration of
the outward ordinances as necessary to constitute a
Christian Church, and you assign to outward ordinances
a rank and value which are not justly
theirs, and make them primary and not, as
they truly are, of secondary importance.
Again, from volume one.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter twenty-five,
section three, distinguishes that which is essential from
that which is given for the well-being
of the Church.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, twenty-five, three,
states, Quote, Unto this Catholic invisible Church Christ
hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of
God for the gathering and perfecting of the
saints in this life to the end of
the world, and doth by his own presence
and spirit, according to his promise, make them
effectual thereunto.
That the ministry, oracles, and ordinances are not
necessary to the being of the Church is
clearly spelled out for us when the Confession
says that these things were given unto the
Church for the perfecting of the saints.
That which is given unto the Church for
its perfection cannot be said to constitute its
existence.
Ministry, oracles, and ordinances are not things that
essentially distinguish Christians from pagans, but rather these
are the marks that essentially distinguish one Christian
assembly from another.
Rather than distinguishing Christian churches from non-Christian
churches, this distinction allows us to differentiate between
faithful true churches, esse, and unfaithful true churches,
esse.
The Church of Scotland, 1638-1649, serves as
an example of the former and is to
be distinguished from the Church of Rome or
the Reformed and Presbyterian Daughters of the Revolution
Church, who serve as examples of the latter.
Though he has given these distinctions some lip
service in the past, see The Visible Church
in the Outer Darkness, page 5, it is
evident that Mr. Bacon does not understand how
to apply these necessary distinctions.
This is proved by the fact that the
marks of the Church in the 1560 Scottish
Confession of Faith and the words of Samuel
Rutherford as cited in Defense Departed are misrepresented
and misunderstood by Mr. Bacon.
The 1560 Scottish Confession of Faith speaks of
the well-being of the Church when it
says, quote, The notes, therefore, of the true
Kirk of God we believe, confess, and avow
to be, first, the true preaching of the
word of God into the which God has
revealed Himself to us as the writings of
the prophets and apostles do declare, secondly, the
right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus,
which must be annexed unto the word and
promise of God to seal and confirm the
same in our hearts, last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly
ministered as God's word prescribes, whereby vice is
repressed and virtue nourished.
Wheresoever, then, these former notes are seen and
of any time continue, be the number, that
is, of persons, never so few, about two
or three, there, without all doubt, is the
true Kirk of Christ, who, according to His
promise, is in the midst of them, not
that universal, that is, Kirk, of which we
have before spoken, but particular Kirks, such as
were in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places,
in which the ministry was planted by Paul
and were of himself named the Kirks of
God."
Notice here that the 1560 Scottish Confession of
Faith uses a more general definition of the
true church, and one that could only be
applicable when defining the true church as to
its well-being and not to its being.
This is evident by the fact that the
Scots of 1560 included the ministry, ordinances, and
discipline in their definition of the true church.
As we have already seen, these are things
given for the perfecting of the church and
not for the existence of the church.
The 18th chapter of the Scottish Confession was
speaking of the same thing as Westminster Confession
of Faith, chapter 25, section 3, where it
says, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and
ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting
of the saints.
It was not at all describing the essence
of the true church described in Westminster Confession
of Faith, 25, 2, but rather was contrasting
a faithful church which ought to be joined
to an unfaithful church which must be avoided.
The Scots of 1560 were making a correct
distinction between a true church being and a
faithful church well-being, legitimately and pastorally warning
God's people to separate from the corruption within
the visible church.
If the reader will take the time to
read the 18th chapter of the 1560 Scottish
Confession with these distinctions in mind, he will
easily see that the three marks of the
church never pertain to the church's essence and
always pertain to the well-being of the
true church of Christ.
If the three marks do pertain to the
essence of the church, as Mr. Bacon would
seem to believe, then why did the Spirit
of God call the wandering Jews, who were
without the sacrament of circumcision for forty years,
a church in the wilderness?
Acts 7.38 This is he that was
in the church in the wilderness with the
angel which spake to him in the Mount
Sinai and with our fathers who received the
lively oracles to give unto us.
We are assured from Scripture that circumcision was
not administered to this church in the wilderness
by the following account in the book of
Joshua.
And this is the cause why Joshua did
circumcise all the people that came out of
Egypt that were males, even all the men
of war, died in the wilderness by the
way after they came out of Egypt.
Now all the people that came out were
circumcised, but all the people that were born
in the wilderness by the way as they
came forth out of Egypt, them they had
not circumcised.
For the children of Israel walked forty years
in the wilderness till all the people that
were men of war which came out of
Egypt were consumed because they obeyed not the
voice of the Lord, unto whom the Lord
sware that he would not show them the
land which the Lord sware unto their fathers
that he would give us, a land that
floweth with milk and honey.
And their children whom he raised up in
their stead, them Joshua circumcised, for they were
uncircumcised because they had not circumcised them by
the way.
Joshua chapter 5 verses 4 through 7.
Therefore we may safely conclude that, according to
Scripture, circumcision is not essential to the definition
of a true church, esseh.
This unequivocally proves that the 1560 Scottish Confession
of Faith could not have been referring to
the essence of the church when it defined
the church as having three marks.
Baptism, the second mark, like circumcision, is given
for the perfecting of the saints and is
not essential to the definition of a true
church, esseh.
Unless Mr. Bacon wishes to assert that the
Church of Scotland, 1560, was wrong about what
it wrote in the 18th chapter of its
confession, he must admit that they were talking
about the well-being of the church and
not its being.
Next, consider again Mr. Bacon's comments when he
says, quote, Rutherford did not leave us to
guess if he understood the true church as
the 1560 Scots Confession understood it or if
he agreed with the Stelites.
Close quote.
That's from Defense Departed.
How could Mr. Bacon assert that Samuel Rutherford
and the 1560 Scottish Confession were saying the
same thing when, as I have demonstrated, they
were not even talking about the same subject?
The 18th chapter of the 1560 Scottish Confession
used the definition distinguishing a faithful church from
an unfaithful church to practically warn and instruct
the people of God to avoid communion with
the church of Antichrist.
They knew that, strictly speaking, the ministry, ordinances,
and discipline were not necessary to the being
of a church.
On the other hand, as I have already
demonstrated, Samuel Rutherford, in the passage cited by
Mr. Bacon in his Defense Departed, was speaking
only about the being of the church.
Mr. Bacon apparently does not recognize the distinction
between the well-being of the church spoken
of in the 1560 Scottish Confession and the
being of the church spoken of by Samuel
Rutherford in his Due Right of Presbyteries, this
lack of understanding which is magnified when he
further asserts that the so-called Steelites disagree
with both Rutherford and the 1560 Scottish Confession.
The PRC agrees with both Samuel Rutherford and
the 1560 Scottish Confession, while Mr. Bacon misrepresents
all parties involved.
The PRC agrees with Rutherford that one mark
alone is sufficient to constitute a true visible
church as the being that is a visible
profession of the truth.
The PRC also agrees with the 1560 Scottish
Confession when they say that the three notes
that pertain to the well-being of the
church are the true preaching of the word,
the right administration of the sacraments, and ecclesiastical
discipline uprightly administered.
In this case, Mr. Bacon's unqualified libel has
misstated the doctrine of Rutherford, the 1560 Scottish
Confession, and the PRC-E.
In his attempt to expose the alleged error
of the PRC-E, Mr. Bacon has again
exposed himself to shame.
Mr. Bacon is correct in this much, at
least.
Rutherford did leave no doubt whether or not
he agrees with the doctrine of the Puritan
Reformed Church.
He agrees with us perfectly.
That is, we agree perfectly in the truth.
Thus far, I have demonstrated that the Puritan
Reformed Church calls many churches on earth truly
constituted churches, as to being, contrary to Mr.
Bacon's slanderous misrepresentation that we think we are
the only Christian church on earth.
I have also shown that Mr. Bacon does
not appear to understand the distinction between the
being and the well-being of the church.
If he claims that he understands this distinction,
his crime is aggravated, for then we must
ask why he didn't mention it in his
accusations.
Why did he purposely mislead others to believe
that the PRCE thought they were the world's
only Christian church, if he knew that we
considered many other churches to be essentially true?
If he admits his ignorance of these important
distinctions, he needs to publicly repent for making
such serious public misrepresentations of our beliefs.
Either way, he needs to repent.
We must distinguish between the true church being
and the true church well-being to fulfill
our moral duty to God.
John Anderson writes Quote I have already mentioned
the important distinction between a true church that
is being and a pure church that is
well-being.
A church may retain the principle doctrines and
ordinances of the Christian religion in her profession
in such a measure that she may be
called a true church and yet she may,
as an ecclesiastical body, have such errors in
doctrine, such human inventions as integral parts of
her worship, such unscriptural officers and usages in
her government, or may be chargeable from such
defection from reformation formerly attained, that we cannot
be faithful to the cause of Christ, which
in these respects is opposed, nor to the
Catholic, that is, universal church, for whose true
interest we are bound to use our best
endeavors, nor to the souls of men, which
are deeply injured by such evils, without withdrawing
from her communion.
A particular church in this case, though she
ceases to be a pure church, may still
be called a true church of Christ on
account of the measure in which she retains
the profession of his truth and ordinances.
That's from John Anderson's Alexander and Rufus.
John Calvin uses the same reasoning when speaking
of the Roman Catholic church of his day.
He distinguished between a true church, esse, and
the faithful church, bene esse, which one ought
to join or in which one should remain.
He demonstrates that it is a fundamental principle
of Protestantism to separate from a true church,
esse, to go to a true church, as
to well-being, when staying in a true
but corrupt church prevents us from fulfilling our
duty to God or conversely causes us to
sin.
Quote, However, when we categorically deny to the
papists the title of the church, that is,
as to its well-being, we do not
for this reason impugn the existence of churches
among them, that is, as to their being.
Rather, we are only contending about the true
and lawful constitution of the church required in
the communion not only of the sacraments, which
are signs of profession, but also especially of
doctrine.
Again, that's from Calvin's Institutes.
Another quote from Calvin.
In the same way, if anyone recognizes the
present congregations contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and ungodly
doctrine as churches in full communion of which
a Christian man must stand even to the
point of agreeing in doctrine, he will gravely
err, for if they are churches, the power
of the keys is in their hands, but
the keys have an indissoluble bond with the
Word, which has been destroyed among them.
Again, if they are churches, Christ's promise prevails
among them, whatever you bind, and so forth.
That's Matthew 16, 19, 18, 18, and John
23, 20.
But on the contrary, they disown from their
communion all that genuinely profess themselves servants of
Christ.
Accordingly, either Christ's promise is vain, or they
are not, at least in this regard, churches.
Finally, instead of the ministry of the Word,
they have schools of ungodliness in a sink
of all kinds of errors.
Consequently, by this reckoning, either they are not
churches, or no mark will remain to distinguish
the lawful congregation of believers from the assemblies
of the Turks.
And that's again from the Institutes.
Speaking of the Romish Antichrist, he says, quote,
Daniel, Daniel 9, 27, and Paul, 2 Thessalonians
2, 4, foretold that Antichrist would sit in
the temple of God.
With us, it is the Roman pontiff we
make the leader and standard-bearer of that
wicked and abominable kingdom.
The fact that his seat is placed in
the temple of God signifies that his reign
was not such as to wipe out either
the name of Christ or of the church.
From this, it therefore is evident that we
by no means deny that the churches under
his tyranny remain churches.
And that's from the Institutes.
Finally, Calvin states, quote, To sum up, I
call them churches, that is, esse, to the
extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them
a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed
and scattered, and to the extent that some
marks, or vestiges, of the church remain, especially
those marks, like baptism, whose effectiveness neither the
devil's wiles nor human depravity can destroy.
But on the other hand, because in them
those marks have been erased to which we
should pay particular regard in this discourse, I
say that every one of their congregations and
their whole body lack the lawful form of
the church, that is, bene esse.
And again, that's from the Institutes, and that
is the concluding section of Calvin's treatment on
that in Book 4, Chapter 2.
Note that Calvin is calling particular churches within
the Roman Catholic Church true, as to essence,
while at the same time calling them false
because they lack a true and lawful constitution.
He states that the true and lawful constitution
of the church is required in the communion
of the sacraments as well as the doctrine.
The fact that he mentions their true and
lawful communion in relation to the sacraments is
significant to our present dispute with Mr. Bacon.
Here Calvin is using this phrase, true and
lawfully constituted, in exactly the same sense as
the PRCE did when we dissociated from the
Reformation Presbyterian Church.
Like John Calvin, Rutherford, and Turretin, we were
not contending that the individual churches of the
pretended Presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church did
not exist as Christian churches relative to pagans.
Rather, we were contending about the true and
lawful constitution of the church which the Reformation
Presbyterian Church required in her terms of communion.
In the 23 times we used the phrase,
truly constituted church, in our letter of dissociation
we never once used it in such a
way as to denote the essence or being
of the church.
We were not arguing about whether the bodies
in the Reformation Presbyterian Church were Christian or
pagan, only whether these bodies lacked a true
and lawful constitution as they applied their doctrine
to the ministry, ordinances, and discipline.
We were simply saying that their terms of
communion were inconsistent with our duties and obligations
before God, and that we could not in
good conscience comply with them.
Consequently, we believed that our differences with the
Reformation Presbyterian Church were so fundamental that we
could not continue to be ecclesiastically associated with
them.
Again, I cite John Anderson.
Quote, If there be no lawful refusing of
sacramental communion with a particular church, then there
can be no lawful separation from it till
it be unchurched.
But the latter is absurd and therefore the
former.
I think it manifestly absurd to say that
we are not to separate from a particular
church, however degenerate and corrupt in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, till it is no church
of Christ at all.
For this would be to suppose that, though
Christ has provided the centers of the church
as a means of preserving her from the
danger arising from the offenses of one or
a few members, He has provided no means
of her preservation from the far greater danger
of utter ruin by the prevailing influence of
a corrupt majority.
When such a majority is found incorrigibly obstinate
in their opposition to any steps towards a
thorough reformation, it is evident that there is
no remedy but secession.
By such a majority, one great end of
church communion, which is that the truths and
institutions of the Lord Jesus may be preserved
pure and entire, is avowedly and obstinately opposed.
And therefore, in this case, the Lord Jesus
is saying to His people, as in 2
Corinthians 6.17, Come out from among them
and be ye separate.
Many of us many limits such calls to
our departure from the communion of pagans and
papists, but they are applicable to our secession
from any prevailing party, even though they should
bear the name of Christians, of Protestants and
Presbyterians, who, in their united capacity or as
a professing body, are going on in obstinate
opposition to any of the truths and institutions
of Jesus Christ, so that none can continue
in their church communion without being involved in
the guilt of that opposition.
From such combinations, Christ is calling His people
to separate.
It is not meant, however, that degenerate Protestants
and Presbyterians are upon a level with heathens
and papists, for there may be a just
cause of separation from the former, though not
so great as from the latter.
We have now clearly established that Mr. Bacon
has publicly shamed himself by making sinfully unqualified
charges.
One more thing needs to be discussed before
we go on to the next misrepresentation.
What is Mr. Bacon really saying about all
other churches when he attempts to form a
new presbytery instead of joining an already existing
one?
The member churches and ministers of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church came from various denominations, but primarily
they separated from the Presbyterian Church in America,
that is, the PCA.
Mr. Bacon played a large part in getting
these ministers and elders together to talk about
uniting into a presbytery.
At the first meeting, Mr. Bacon asked a
very good question for which no one in
the room had an adequate answer.
What reason did this group of men have
to form yet another Presbyterian denomination distinct from
all the rest?
That question forms the basis for one of
our greatest objections to the Reformation Presbyterian Church's
pretended presbytery.
What did the Reformation Presbyterian Church really say
about the other denominations and congregations in the
world when they formed yet another distinct and
rival denomination?
Given his view of the nature of the
Church, Mr. Bacon practically asserts the pretended presbytery
of the Reformation Presbyterian Church to be the
only truly constituted, as to well-being, church
court in the world.
Does the Reformation Presbyterian Church presbytery regard the
church courts of the Presbyterian Church in America,
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North
America, or any other denomination as having jurisdiction
over them?
Is the RPC officially in union with any
church court in the world?
If they are, then why didn't they acknowledge
such a union at their inception?
Does the Reformation Presbyterian Church claim to follow
all the contradictory acts of the present-day
General Assemblies?
From where did the churches of the Reformation
Presbyterian Church come?
Did not the Reformation Presbyterian Church gather her
churches from other true churches?
How is this consistent with Mr. Bacon's book
entitled The Visible Church in the Outer Darkness?
The fundamental principle of government in each distinct
Presbyterian denomination in the United States and Canada
is really no different than that of the
independent congregations Mr. Bacon calls separatist.
By forming a distinct and independent denomination, Mr.
Bacon and the Reformation Presbyterian Church are testifying
that they could not find one group in
all the world with whom they could in
good conscience unite.
This confused ecclesiology is no different in theory
than the doctrine of the independence, only it
is being practiced in forming denominations rather than
congregations.
Thus we designated independent denominationalism.
The Reformation Presbyterian Church and the other distinct
and independent Presbyterian denominations have put Presbyterian window
-dressing upon an essentially independent concept of the
church government.
You have your church court and I'll have
mine is the motto of the churches in
North America and around the world.
John Anderson writes, quote, The Catholic Church comprehends
all that profess the true religion.
There is a lawful and necessary division of
it into sections in respect of local situation,
but when a number of people bearing the
Christian name combine together as a distinct society
for the purpose of maintaining and propagating doctrines
and practices which instead of belonging to the
true religion are contrary to it they ought
not considered as such a combination to be
called a lawful section of the Catholic Church.
It is not denied that they belong to
the Catholic Church but it is denied that
there ought to be any such section or
division in it.
Thus there ought to be no section of
the Catholic Church having for the peculiar end
of its distinct subsistence the support of Episcopal
hierarchy unknown in the Scripture of the propagation
of anti-pedo-baptism or of anti-scriptural
doctrines in opposition to that of God's election,
redemption, effectual calling and the conservation of His
people as delivered in the Scripture or for
the support of ways and means of divine
worship not found in Scripture.
If the Catholic Visible Church were brought to
a suitable discharge of her duty she would
abolish all such sections.
But no society ought to be called such
an unlawful section while it can be shown
that it subsists as a separate society for
no other end than for the maintaining of
something in the doctrine, worship or government of
the Church which belongs to the Christian religion
as delivered in the word of God or
for exhibiting a testimony against prevailing errors and
corruptions which the Scripture requires the Catholic Church
to condemn.
Such a profession of any party of Christians
is no sectarian profession and a union with
them is not a sectarian but properly a
Christian union and being cordial and sincere is
a union in Christ and communion upon the
ground of this union is truly Christian communion.
On the other hand however much of our
holy religion any body of Christians hold in
common with others and however many of them
we may charitably judge to be saints yet
while their distinguishing profession is contrary to the
word of God communion with them as a
body so distinguished is sectarian communion as it
implies a union with them in that which
ought to be rejected by the whole Catholic
Church.
That again is from Alexander and Rufus.
Where does the Bible teach that each nation
is supposed to have numerous independent and rival
church courts all claiming to be Presbyterian?
The word of God teaches the exact opposite.
The Westminster Standards teach the exact opposite.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
1638 to 1649 certainly did not believe in
the independent denominationalism of Mr. Bacon and the
Reformation Presbyterian Church.
Instead the Westminster Divines taught and practiced in
agreement with Scripture that each nation was to
have one national church covenanted together in unity
of doctrine and uniformity of practice.
They not only taught and practiced it but
God blessed them with victory in three nations
albeit for a very short time.
This idea of covenanted unity and uniformity is
the only possible way for the independent Presbyterians
of recent years to extract themselves from a
palpable dilemma.
While they preach Presbyterianism from the pulpits they
practice independency in their church courts.
Mr. Bacon's false and scandalous charge that the
PRCE thinks it is the only duly constituted
church court in the whole world rings hollow
in our ears when coming from his mouth.
Who does he think he's fooling when he
will not join with any other group on
earth and then solves his dilemma by pretending
to form yet another rival independent Presbyterian church
court in the United States?
Who does he think he's fooling when he
boldly and unqualifiedly proclaims that the PRCE thinks
they are the only truly constituted church court?
If his sin were not so serious it
would border upon the humorous and absurd, especially
considering that he cannot see how he is
condemning his own actions.
Let him soberly consider that he has charged
us with precisely the same thing he is
doing and in the process caused much mischief
and division.
May Mr. Bacon sincerely repent of his hypocrisy
and double standard.
The Reformation Presbyterian church in its pretended court
is presently nothing more than another independent schism
in the body of Christ.
Quote, We are expressly commanded to note such
schismatics and mark such causes of divisions and
offenses which they effectuate both by their practice
and by their words, crying up their own
party and informing against the more pure and
faithful remnant.
That's from James Rennick's Informatory Vindication.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall
be judged, and with what measure ye meet,
it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is
in thine brother's eye, but considerest not the
beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother,
Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye, and behold, the beam is in
thine own eye.
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out
of thine own eye, and then shalt thou
see clearly to cast out the mote out
of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7, verses 2-5 Now the reader
may object and ask what is different about
what the PRCE is doing?
Have they not practically done the same thing?
Have they not set up a church court
distinct from all the rest?
No, just the opposite.
We have separated from all the existing schisms
of the present day and returned to the
original covenanted constitution of the Church of Scotland.
We own their constitution and are bound by
the acts of their General Assembly 1638-1649
because they are agreeable to God's word and
because they are undeniably noble examples of the
purest and highest attainment of the Church of
Jesus Christ thus far.
Contrary to Mr. Bacon's charge that we do
not believe ourselves compelled to answer in any
church court, we abide by and enforce the
rulings of their church courts as they are
agreeable to God's word, and we also understand
this is part of the formal and moral
obligation of the solemn league and covenant.
We have not separated ourselves into independency like
Mr. Bacon, who by his separatist practice owns
no church court but his own, but instead
have returned to the Presbyterian polity which we
have sworn to uphold in the covenants of
our forefathers.
Let the reader judge if we have not
chosen the scriptural way to promote unity of
doctrine and uniformity in practice.
We are simply following in the paths of
our forefathers, Song of Solomon 1.8, Jeremiah
6.16, and imitating their godly and biblical
example while hoping for the same blessing of
God upon our efforts that they enjoyed upon
theirs.
The Worldwide Vision of the Puritan Reformed Church
of Edmonton The PRCE is committed to promoting
covenanted national Presbyterian churches which will rule the
Church of Christ in covenanted unity and uniformity.
Perhaps some may scoff and think that the
PRCE is just dreaming about a high-in
-the-sky ideal, but if we stop and
consider what the Millennial Church will be like,
we will recognize that covenanted unity in doctrine
and uniformity in practice are its essential components.
The Church of Christ must not give up
what we know to be true doctrine simply
because what we hope for seems so far
away.
Thomas McCree comments, Are there any who, when
they hear of the future of uniting all
Christians in profession, affection and practice, are disposed
to receive the intimation with a smile of
incredulity, to treat the prospect as visionary, and
to exclaim, How can these things be?
Will God create a new race on the
earth?
Will He give new structure to the minds
of men?
Will they not continue to think and act
about religion as they have done from the
beginning until now?
Hear the word of the Lord, you scornful
men!
Is it a small matter for you to
worry men?
Will you worry my God also?
Has He not said, I will give them
one heart and one way, that they may
fear me?
Jeremiah 32.29 And will He not do
it?
Let God be true and every man a
liar.
Romans 3.4 When the time comes, the
time which He is set for accomplishing His
promise, He shall arise, and every difficulty and
every obstruction shall give way before Him and
vanish at His approach.
Do you ask a sign?
Do you ask it in the heaven above?
It is He that binds the sweet influences
of Pleiades and loosens the frozen bands of
Orion, and that guides Arcturus with his sons.
Job 38.31 Do you ask it in
the earth beneath?
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the
kid, and the calf and the young lion
and the fatling together, and a little child
shall lead them.
For the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover
the sea.
Isaiah 11.6 The Infinite One has in
His faithful word pledged all His perfections for
the accomplishment of this work.
What resistance can be opposed to infinite power
put in motion by infinite love and guided
by infinite wisdom?
He can raise up instruments properly qualified and
disposed for promoting His design, guide their counsels,
animate them to constancy and perseverance, and finally
crown all their exertions with the wished-for
success.
He has the hearts of all men in
His hand and can turn them like the
waters in an aqueduct.
He can rebuke the spirit of error and
delusion, cause the prophets and the unclean spirit
to pass out of the land and remove
and abolish all things that offend in His
kingdom.
He can subdue the most stubborn and inveterate
prejudices, allay the fiercest heats and animosities, convert
jealousies into confidence and hatred into love, and
having made the wrath of man to praise
Him by accomplishing His purposes, He can restrain
the remainder thereof.
Who is among you that fears the Lord
and obeys the voice of His servant who
walks in darkness and has no light as
to the removal or abatement of the melancholy
divisions of the church?
Let him plant his faith firmly on the
promises of Jehovah and stay himself on His
perfections.
Say with the prophet Jeremiah, in a similar
case, Ah, Lord God, behold, Thou hast made
the heaven and the earth by Thy great
power, and there is nothing too hard for
Thee.
The great, the mighty God, the Lord of
hosts, is His name, great in counsel and
mighty in work.
Place yourself in spirit in the midst of
the emblematical valley into which Ezekiel was carried,
and say, God who raises the dead can
easily do this.
Ezekiel 37, 1-14 and 2 Corinthians 1
-9 Rivers deep and broad, seas noisy and
tempestuous, on which no galley with oars can
go, neither gallant ship ride, Isaiah 33-21,
have disparted the territories which the God of
heaven has given to His Son and prevented
the intercourse of His subjects.
But He shall utterly destroy the tongue of
the Egyptian sea, and with His mighty wind
shall He shake His hand over the river
and shall smite it in the seven streams
and make men go over dry shod.
And there shall be an highway for the
remnant of His people, like as it was
to Israel in the day that He came
out of the land of Egypt, Isaiah 11,
15 and 16.
Brazen mountains of separation may stand in the
way of the desirable event, but the resistance
which they oppose to it shall be overcome,
not according to the confused plan of modern
projectors by throwing a scaffolding over them by
which those who have reared altars on their
tops may hold occasional intercourse and partial communion,
but in a way becoming the New Testament
Zerubbabel, the disperser of confusion.
When He rends the heavens and comes down
to do things which we look not for,
the mountains shall flow down at His presence,
Isaiah 64, 1.
Those separations which have been of most ancient
date and which threaten to last forever shall
yield to His power.
The everlasting mountains shall be scattered, the perpetual
hills shall bow before Him whose ways are
everlasting, Habakkuk 3.6. If there shall be
one that has reared its head above all
the rest and makes a more formidable resistance,
it also shall crumble down and disappear.
Who art thou, O great mountain?
Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain, Zechariah
4.7. Then shall the mountain on which
the house of God is built be established
on the top of the mountains and exalted
above the hills, and all nations shall flow
to it.
And He will rebuke and repress the envious
risings of its proudest rival.
A hill of God is the hill of
Bashan, a high hill of Bashan.
But why lift ye up yourselves, ye high
hills?
This, Zion, is the hill which God desireth
to dwell in.
Yea, the Lord will dwell in it forever,
Psalm 68, 15 and 16.
May God fulfill these promises in due time,
and unto Him be glory in the church
by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without
end.
Amen.
That's taken from Thomas McCree's Unity of the
Church.
We cannot walk together with Mr. Bacon in
his schismatic practice and agree to this endless
multiplying of rival church courts.
We believe that it is sin to associate
or comply with such schismatic societies.
We call upon all those who see the
scriptural principles being violated to separate from such
schisms and work together with us toward one
national covenanted unity and uniformity.
This is the true doctrine of the Second
Reformation, and we praise God that it will
again be victorious.
And closing with a quote from the Reformed
Presbytery's short vindication of our covenanted reformation, These
modern pygmies are too far dwarfed in intellectual
stature to measure the altitude of our glorious
covenanted reformation.
A reformation which, embedded in the law and
the covenant of God, has already brought civil
and ecclesiastical freedom to many millions, and which
is doubtless destined to be laid in the
foundation of reconstructed society in the millennial period
of the world.
Thank you for listening to Chapter 2 of
The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics by
Greg Barrow.
Please note that this tape is not copyrighted,
and we therefore encourage you to copy and
distribute it to all who you think might
benefit.
The full-length book is available from Stillwater's
Revival Books, 4710 37A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6L
3T5.
The phone number is area code 780-450
-3730, and the area code is 403 until
January 1st, 1999.
Or, the full-length book is available free
on Stillwater's webpage, www.swrb.com.
Stillwater's publishes a treasure trove of the finest
biblical, Protestant, and Reformed literature available anywhere today.
They'll send you a free catalog at your
request, so contact them today.
Stillwater's Revival Books, publishing the true peace for
the scriptural unity and purity of Christ's Church.