This is tape 3 of Covenanted Uniformity, the
Protestant Remedy for Disunity, being chapter 3 of
Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
Contemporary Schismatics.
Please note that this entire book is free
on Stillwater Survival Books' website, www.swrb.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 swrb at swrb.com.
Note that these tapes are not copyrighted, and
we therefore encourage you to copy and distribute
them to any and all you believe would
be benefited.
And we continue our reading.
While it isn't necessary to take the solemn
league and covenant to become a Christian, it
is necessary to own it in a land
that is formally bound to this everlasting covenant
with God.
Once this covenant was sworn, it formed an
obligation that became a test of Christian faithfulness
and a subordinate and secondary rule of faith
agreeable to God's word.
The intrinsic obligation of the solemn league and
covenant is real and distinct.
Ignoring it or railing against it will not
make it disappear.
Many covenanters and their children died telling us
to take this seriously, and all who have
now read this can no longer claim ignorance
of what God will require at the last
day.
All who ignore these just claims of God
are without excuse.
Covenant-breaking is a heinous sin.
Suffice it here to warn and indict covenant
-breakers in the words of our venerable ancestors.
This is August 20, Session 15, 1647, a
declaration and exhortation of the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland to their brethren in
England.
Yet we should betray our own sense and
betray the truth if we should not resent
so great a sin and danger as is
the breach of a solemn covenant sworn with
hands lifted up to the Most High God,
which breach, however, varnished over with some colorful
and handsome pretext, one whereof is the liberty
and common right of the free people of
England, as once saw break a covenant with
the Gibeonites in his zeal to the children
of Israel and Judah.
Yet God could not then and cannot now
be mocked, yea, it is too apparent and
undeniable that among those who did take the
covenant of the three kingdoms, as there are
many who have given themselves to a detestable
indifference or neutrality, so there is a generation
which has made defection on the contrary part,
persecuting as far as they could that true
reformed religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
which by the covenant they ought to preserve
against the common enemies, hindering and resisting the
reformation and uniformity which by the covenant ought
to be endeavored, preserving and tolerating those cursed
things which by the covenant ought to be
extirpated.
That's from the Acts of the General Assemblies
of the Church of Scotland, pages 333 and
334.
O ye seed of Israel, his servant, ye
children of Jacob, his chosen ones, he is
the Lord our God, his judgments are on
all the earth.
Be ye mindful always of his covenant, the
word which he commanded to a thousand generations,
1 Chronicles 16, verses 13 through 15.
F.
Do the circumstantial details of the solemn leaving
covenant bind us?
Moving on to a different aspect of our
present debate, I wish to allow Pastor Price
to address Mr. Bacon's concerns relating to the
circumstantial details of the solemn leaving covenant.
Since our dear pastor had already completed this
task, I saw no reason to duplicate his
work.
Mr. Bacon states, The Reformation Presbyterian Church thus
has maintained and continues to maintain that the
Westminster documents which we have adopted were, see
the Westminster Bibliography, says Bacon, transacted upon the
basis of the moral obligations of the solemn
leaving covenant.
The moral and perpetual obligations of the solemn
leaving covenant are met and fulfilled insofar as
a church commits itself to those just requirements
of God's word.
The human constitutions by which those commitments are
met may vary from 1643 Scotland to 1997
North America, and as from defense departed.
Pastor Price responds, Are there circumstantial details within
these covenants that do not apply to the
United States and Canada?
Yes, there are.
For example, the United States has neither king
nor parliament nor national church.
Canada has no national church.
Neither the United States nor Canada as nations
acknowledge their obligation to the solemn leaving covenant.
But that which is circumstantial does not alter
the moral obligations contained within these lawful covenants.
If there is anything in these instruments, that
is, the national covenant and the solemn leaving
covenant, of a circumstantial nature, we admit it
may vary with the circumstances which produced it.
But whatever is moral will remain as permanent
as these nations and as unchangeable as the
great legislator, that is, the Lord God Himself.
That's from Samuel B.
Wiley's Sermon on Covenanting, page 98.
Consider that when the covenanted nations of Israel
and Judah were sent into captivity, they also
were unable to keep certain circumstantial elements of
the covenant made with their fathers.
For example, they had no king from among
their brethren to reign over them.
They had no national church.
They were unable to keep the worship required
in the law as long as they were
separated from the temple in Jerusalem.
And yet God preserved a faithful remnant of
covenant keepers even in the land of their
captivity.
For example, Ezekiel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Esther,
Mordecai, and so forth.
How did they keep the covenant of their
fathers?
They obeyed all the terms of the covenant
that were yet applicable to them while in
captivity.
All those in captivity were yet formally bound
by the covenant of their fathers, despite the
circumstantial differences that existed in captivity.
Some, like Ezekiel, Daniel, and so forth, were
covenant keepers, while others were enduring the divine
curses God had promised to bring upon them
for breaking the covenant of their fathers.
And if ye shall despise my statutes, or
if your soul abhor my judgments, so that
ye will not do all my commandments, but
that ye break my covenant, I will scatter
you among the heathen.
Leviticus 26, 15, 33 Observe that Ezekiel makes
clear that Israel in captivity could not escape
the formal bond of the covenant, and I
will cause you to pass under the rod,
and I will bring you into the bond
of the covenant.
Ezekiel 20, 37 Calvin's exposition of this verse
further evidences that Israel in captivity was yet
formally bound by the covenant of their fathers,
and not only morally bound to the law
found in the covenant.
For Calvin distinguishes between the covenant that formally
bound Israel, but did not so bind the
Gentiles, whereas if God were only speaking of
the moral law contained in the covenant, that
would equally bind the Gentiles as well.
Quote, Hence the bond of the covenant means
the constancy of his covenant as far as
he is concerned, and the simile is suitable
because God had bound his people to himself
on the condition that they should be always
surrounded with these bonds.
Hence when they petulantly wandered like untamed beasts,
yet God had hidden bonds of his covenant,
that is, he persevered in his own covenant
so that he collected them all again to
himself, not to rule over them as a
father, but to punish their revolt more severely.
Here is a tacit comparison between the Israelites
and the Gentiles.
For the Gentiles, through their never approaching nearer
to God, wandered away in their licentiousness without
restraint.
But the state of the elect people was
different since the end of their covenant was
this, that God held them bound to him
even if the whole world should escape from
him.
As from Calvin's Commentaries on Ezekiel, page 332.
Moreover, the faithful covenanters in Scotland, England, and
Ireland of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries could
certainly have maintained that certain circumstances mentioned in
the solemn legion covenant no longer applied to
them, and therefore they were no longer formally
bound to keep it.
For example, when Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector,
there was no king, or under Charles II
and James II, the solemn legion covenant was
burned and made illegal or after 1707 Scotland
and England became one nation, and so forth.
But such evasions were always the proposed excuses
on the part of covenant breakers as to
why they were not formally obligated to own
or to renew either the national covenant or
the solemn legion covenant.
The faithful words of the Covenantant and Presbyterian
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland should
put all such evasions to flight.
Quote, Albeit the legion covenant, that is, the
solemn legion covenant, be despised by that prevailing
party in England, and the work of uniformity,
through the retardments and obstructions that have come
in the way, be almost forgotten by these
kingdoms, yet the obligation of that covenant is
perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are
constantly to be minded and prosecuted by every
one of us in our posterity according to
their places and stations.
And again, that's from the Acts of the
General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, page
460.
Pastor Price's response ends here, and again I
would like to thank him for his faithful
work and gracious assistance in this matter.
Positive application of the covenants to modern times
and circumstances.
Covenant renewal.
I readily admit that many circumstances have changed
from 1643 to 1997.
Many circumstances had also changed from 1643 to
1651.
The unity of the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland was broken, and the reigning
power had fled the country.
Control was in the hands of the conquering
usurper, Oliver Cromwell.
Did this radical change in circumstances change the
obligation of the covenants?
Did the intrinsic obligation to own and renew
the covenants suddenly fly away when Cromwell usurped
power?
Is it true that the human constitutions by
which those commitments are met may vary from
1643 Scotland to 1997 North America, as Mr.
Bacon argues?
If he means that we are to swear
new covenants, entirely distinct from the Solemn League
and Covenant, to meet our changing circumstances, then
I emphatically say he greatly errs.
If he means that we ought to faithfully
renew the Solemn League and Covenant, recognizing its
intrinsic moral obligation, while applying it to contemporary
circumstances, then I wholeheartedly agree.
This is what was done in Arkansas, Scotland,
1712, and again in Philadelphia, October 8, 1880.
The title of the Arkansas deed is instructive
of its purpose and pertains directly to this
question of accommodating the Solemn League and Covenant
to our time and position, respectively.
The title reads, The Arkansas renovation of the
National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant,
with the acknowledgment of sins and engagement to
duties as they were renewed at Arkansas, near
Douglas, compared with the additions of Paisley, 1820,
and Belfast, 1835.
Also, the renovation of these public federal deeds
ordained at Philadelphia, October 8, 1880, by the
Reformed Presbytery, with accommodation of the original covenants
in both transactions to their times and positions,
respectively.
From this it is readily observable that the
Reformed Presbytery intended to accommodate the original covenants
to the time in which they lived.
They faithfully recognized their intrinsic moral obligation by
holding to the original promises, and they also
explicitly testified against any group who unfaithfully attempted
to imitate a covenant renewal while evading its
moral perpetual obligation.
Quote, We adhere to the renovation of the
national covenants at Arkansas, 1712, as comprising the
same grand scriptural principles with the original deeds
and preserving the identity of the moral person,
which became more visible in 1761 by a
judicial testimony, re-exhibited in 1858 and 1876.
We repudiate the renovation at Dervick, 1853, as
being inadequate, defective, and unfaithful, part of the
document couched in abstract and evasive and equivocal
language.
Also, we condemn and reject the Pittsburgh Bond,
that is, that's the present bond of the
RBC&A, as ambiguous, self-contradictory, and treacherous,
a snare on MSPA, that's the Reformed Presbytery
of America, act of adherence to our covenants,
National and Solemn League, as adapted to the
present time.
Alexander Henderson agrees with the Reformed Presbytery, the
so-called Stelites.
Do the so-called Stelites teach the same
doctrine of covenant renewal as the men of
the Second Reformation?
In answer to this query, I think there
is none better to turn to than the
elder statesman of the Scottish Commissioners sent to
the Westminster Assembly.
Surely Alexander Henderson would give us a true
impression of what was intended in the renewing
of the National Covenant, as he preached on
the occasion of swearing the covenant at St.
Andrews in early April of 1638.
In his sermon upon Psalm 110, verse 3,
thy people shall be willing in the day
of thy power, in the beauty of holiness
from the womb of the morning, thou hast
the due of thy youth, Henderson proclaims, and
indeed ye have just reason to be willing
now, because it is God's cause ye have
in hand, and it is no new cause
to us.
It is almost sixty years old, it is
no less since this same confession of faith
was first subscribed and sworn to, that is,
in 1580 and 1581, and it has been
still in use yearly to be subscribed and
sworn to in some parts among those in
this land to this day.
And I think it would have been so
in all parts of the land if men
had dreamed of what was coming upon us.
Whatever is added to it at this time,
it is nothing but an interpretation of the
former part, and if men will be willing
to see the right, that they may see
that there is nothing in the latter part
but that which may be deduced from the
first.
And in the keeping of the covenant, we
are not found to keep only these same
words that were before, but we must renew
it, and in the renewing thereof, we must
apply it to the present time when it
is renewed, as we have done, renewed it
against the present ills.
And that's from Alexander Henderson's Sermons, Prayers, and
Pulpit Addresses, page 21.
Henderson's doctrine of covenant renewal is exactly the
same as the Reformed Presbytery and the PRCE.
What is Mr. Bacon's doctrine of covenant renewal?
He thinks the seventeenth-century covenant should stay
in the seventeenth century, and the renewal of
our Father's covenants are not included in his
doctrine or his practice.
Rather, he seems to be intent in slandering
all attempts to accomplish that godly end by
hurling aspersion at those who would promote it.
Notice in the above sermon that Henderson says
that the covenant is now almost sixty years
old, and yet it was still being subscribed
in some parts of Scotland on a yearly
basis.
He urges his flock to renew it by
making application to the present time that it
might strengthen the Church of Christ against the
devil's wiles.
I am very thankful for the Reformed Presbytery
who upheld the same doctrine which Henderson here
teaches.
If our nation were presently full of ministers
like those found in the Reformed Presbytery, we
would not so readily wallow in the confusion
of the modern-day malignants.
Men such as Mr. Bacon will have us
believe that the so-called Stelites taught something
different than the great Reformers of the Second
Reformation, and it is abundantly evident that such
a sentiment is grossly inaccurate.
Now, dear reader, you have hard evidence to
prove who is telling the truth.
Mr. Bacon's portrayal that we have no intention
of accommodating these covenants to meet our present
circumstances is now exposed.
The PRCE presently owns both bonds and is
currently working on a covenant renewal to accommodate
and adapt these original covenants to our time
and circumstances respectively.
We pray that God will send faithful laborers
to strengthen our hands in this complex and
difficult task.
Moreover, those like Mr. Bacon, the RPCNA, the
pretended covenanters, or most other so-called Reformed
Presbyterians who wish to avoid or adulterate the
intrinsic obligation of these faithful bonds will of
course be welcome, only let them first repent
and make proper restitution for their past covenant
breaking, perjury, and present slander against the true
covenanted remnant.
Mr. Bacon wishes us to believe that he
is a staunch advocate of public covenanting when
he says, The issue between the Stelites and
the rest of the body of Christ is
not whether we today should practice the ordinance
of public covenanting.
Not only do the Stelites believe public covenanting
is for our present day, so too does
the RPC and the RPCNA.
In reality, every church that practices baptism believes
in public covenanting.
It is not so clear and central with
others of God's people, but when we baptize,
we are covenanting publicly in an engagement to
be the Lord's.
That's from a defense departed.
David Steele comments, The only plausible objection offered
by opponents to the doctrine and practice of
public social covenanting is taken from the assumption
that it is superseded by the sacraments, especially
the Lord's Supper.
The assumption has never been proved and is
utterly groundless as will at once appear to
any unbiased mind by considering that God instituted
all three forms of taking hold of His
covenant.
If it be so that baptism and the
Lord's Supper are substantially the same seals of
the covenant as circumcision and the Passover, then
the consequence is inevitable that as the whole
people of Israel were taken and engaged to
at Sinai, He judged the two preceding forms
incomplete.
And since the privileges of God's covenant people
are enlarged, not abridged, under the New Testament
dispensation, and that public covenanting was a matter
of frequent prediction and promise under the old
dispensation, it follows that this instrumentality is to
be continued and exemplified.
That's from Steele's The Two Witnesses, page 27.
It is true that our baptismal vow includes
the solemn duty of public covenanting, and I
would never want to downplay its importance or
obligation.
The question is whether or not Mr. Bacon's
practice of public covenanting in baptism exonerates him
from the further duty of renewing the other
covenants he is already formally bound to uphold.
Alexander Henderson, in the above-cited sermon preached
at the renewal of the National Covenant, answers
this question.
Quote, Now is there any of you but
ye are obliged to be holy?
Ye say that ye are the people of
the Lord.
If so be, then ye must have your
inward men purged of sin, and ye must
stand at the stave's end against the corruption
of the time, and ye must devote yourselves
only to serve and honor God.
And your covenant, that ye are to swear
to this day, obliges you to this, and
it requires nothing of you but that which
ye are bound to perform.
And therefore, seeing this is required of you,
purge yourselves within, flee the corruptions at the
same time, eschew the society of those whom
ye see to be corrupt, and devote yourselves
only to the Lord.
Yet this is not that we would oblige
you to perform everything punctually that the Lord
requires of you.
There is none who can do that, but
promise to the Lord to do so, tell
him that ye have a desire to do
so, and say to him, Lord, I shall
earnestly endeavor to do as far as I
can.
And indeed, there is no more in our
covenant but this, that we shall endeavor to
keep ourselves within the bounds of our Christian
liberty.
And albeit none of you would swear to
this, ye are bound to it, that is,
the national covenant, by your baptism.
And therefore, think not that we are precisians,
or these who have set down this covenant,
seeing all of you are bound to do
it.
That's from Henderson's Sermons, Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses,
page 23.
Henderson declares that by baptism we are already
bound to the obligation of the covenant.
To him these ideas were joined together like
husband and wife rejoicing side by side in
the beauty of holiness, 1 Chronicles 16.29.
The one entering in by the washing of
regeneration, Titus 3.5, Hebrews 10.22, and
the other endeavoring righteousness and peace with the
solemnity of a promise, Romans 4.13, 2
Peter 3.13. He argues that neglecting to
swear to that which they were already bound
would be contradictory and sinful.
To neglect the one while enjoying the other
would mar the beauty of both.
Each proclaim the glory of God, and together
they promote unity of purpose and desire for
holiness.
Mercy and truth are met together.
Righteousness and peace have kissed each other, Psalm
85, verse 10.
Whereas Henderson would marry these two ideas together,
Mr. Bacon would counsel separation.
The covenant made at baptism does not allow
us to evade our duty as Mr. Bacon
seems to imply.
Rather, our baptismal covenant in a covenanted land
binds us to further uphold our other lawful
covenant obligations laid upon us by our faithful
forefathers in the same manner as parents obligate
their children in baptism.
I acknowledge that Mr. Bacon believes that public
covenanting is for the present day.
The problem is that he does not recognize
his entire covenant obligation as taught by Henderson
in the above sermon.
Like Mr. Bacon, those to whom Henderson spoke
were already covenanted by virtue of their baptismal
vows, but Henderson evidently believed that there existed
an additional obligation to renew this sixty-year
-old promise.
According to Mr. Bacon's doctrine, Henderson should have
been content to let the national covenant die
a natural death due to the fact that
he was already promoting social covenanting through baptismal
vows.
According to Mr. Bacon, Henderson is making this
sort of emphasis upon a covenant renewal too
clear and central in his system of doctrine.
Does the taking of a baptismal vow alter
the necessity of renewing other previously binding covenants
which are agreeable to the word of God?
Not according to Henderson.
On the other hand, Mr. Bacon is again
mixing his apples and oranges, leading others astray
by teaching half-truths.
His alleged advocation for public covenanting falls far
short of the faithful example set by the
ministers of the Second Reformation.
In view of this clear evidence, I cannot
see how Mr. Bacon will ever again dare
say that he adheres to the doctrine taught
and practiced by the Second Reformation Scots regarding
covenanting or covenant renewals.
It is one thing to say that I
believe in public covenanting, and quite another to
understand the faithful application of the doctrine.
Sadly, Mr. Bacon appears to properly understand neither,
and it is grievous that he would pass
on such ignorance to others.
He needs to publicly repent of what he
has written, under the pretense of upholding public
covenanting he has in reality upheld covenant breaking
and counseled others to follow him in his
stiff-necked violation of the Third Commandment.
Now be ye not stiff-necked as your
fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the Lord,
and enter into his sanctuary which he hath
sanctified forever, and serve the Lord your God,
that the fierceness of his wrath may turn
away from you.
H.
The Negative Sanction of the Covenants Withdrawal, Censure,
and Separation Has the PRCE unchurched all who
will not take the covenant, as Mr. Bacon
falsely claims?
On his church's webpage, under the heading of
the Necessity of the Covenants, Mr. Bacon represents
the PRCE as having unchurched all who do
not adopt the solemnly given covenant.
As seems to be his practice when slandering
others, Mr. Bacon fails to give us a
precise definition of the term unchurched.
His sinful and unscholarly lack of precision leaves
us wondering, again, what he is attempting to
say.
Does he mean unchurched as to being, or
unchurched as to well-being?
If, in the future, Mr. Bacon would provide
us with a clear definition of what he
means by this term, perhaps it could then
be properly dealt with.
As it stands, his present charge is unqualified,
undefined, and therefore meaningless.
As such, it only serves to further demonstrate
his readiness to uncharitably and imprecisely rail at
others.
Though it is not presently possible to determine
the exact nature of Mr. Bacon's charge, I
do think it is wise to briefly discuss
dissociation and separation as they pertain to our
solemn covenants.
We follow the practice of the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, 1638-1649, and
censure, that is, bar from the Lord's Supper
or withdraw from all those who will not
own their covenant obligations.
Though withdrawal or censure, depending upon the circumstance,
removes one from a close and intimate communion
with the PRCE, it does not mean that
those who are thus dealt with are no
longer deemed Christians.
As it pertains to the covenants, it simply
means that those who are thus censured or
withdrawn from are considered unfaithful Christians or churches
who need to repent of covenant-breaking and
perjury.
Consider the many acts of the General Assembly
of Scotland from 1638-1649 inclusive, subordinate, and
agreeable to God's Word, which confirm us in
our actions of withdrawing from or censuring all
who will not take, own, and adopt their
binding covenant obligations in this nation.
Covenant subscription is a term of communion for
all members of church and state in a
covenanted nation, an examination of the acts of
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
1638-1649 inclusive.
1.
Act ordaining the subscription of the Confession of
Faith and the Covenant, 1639.
We, by our act and constitution ecclesiastical, do
approve the foresaid covenant in all the heads
and clauses thereof, and ordains of new, under
all ecclesiastical censure, that the masters of universities,
colleges, and schools, all scholars at the passing
of their degrees, all persons suspect of papistry
or any other errors, and, finally, all the
members of this kirken kingdom subscribe the same.
2.
August 8, Session 6, 1643 The General Assembly,
considering the good and pious advice of the
commissioners of the last assembly, upon the 22nd
of September, 1642, recommending to presbyteries to have
copies of the covenant to be subscribed by
every minister at his admission, doth therefore ratify
and approve the same, and further ordains that
the covenant be reprinted with this ordinance prefixed
thereto, and that every synod, presbytery, and parish
have one of them bound in quarto, with
some blank paper, whereupon every person may be
obliged to subscribe, and that the covenants of
the synod and presbytery be kept by their
moderator respective of universities by their principals, of
parishes by their ministers, with all carefulness, and
that particular account of obedience to this act
be required hereafter in all visitations of parishes,
universities, and presbyteries, and all trials of presbyteries
and synod books.
The General Assembly, considering that the Act of
the Assembly at Edinburgh 1639, August 30, enjoining
all persons to subscribe the covenant under all
ecclesiastical censure hath not been obeyed, therefore ordains
all ministers to make intimation of the said
act in their kirks, and thereafter to proceed
with the censures of the kirk against such
as shall refuse to subscribe the covenant, and
that exact account be taken of every minister's
diligence herein by their presbyteries and synods as
they will answer to the General Assembly.
That's page 162.
3.
August 5, session 10, 1640.
The Assembly ordains that if any expectant, that
is, minister, shall refuse to subscribe the covenant,
he shall be declared incapable of pedagogy, teaching
in a school, reading at a kirk, preaching
within a presbytery, and shall not have liberty
of residing within a borough, university, or college,
and if they continue obstinate to be processed.
That's page 94.
4.
August 1, session 5, 1640.
The Assembly ordains that such as have subscribed
the covenant and speaks against the same, if
he be a minister, shall be deprived, and
if he continues so, being deprived, he shall
be excommunicated, and if he be any other
man, he shall be dealt with as perjured
and satisfied publicly for his perjury.
Page 93.
5.
Act against secret disaffectors of the covenant.
1644.
The General Assembly, understanding that diverse persons dissatisfied
to the national covenant of this kirk, and
to the solemn legion covenant of the three
kingdoms, do escape their just censure, either by
private and inconstant abode in any one congregation,
or by secret conveyance of their malignant speeches
and practices, therefore ordains all ministers to take
notice when any such person shall come into
their parishes, and so soon as they shall
know the same, that without delay they cause
them to appear before the presbyteries within which
their parish lies.
And the Assembly ordains the said commissioners not
only to proceed to trial and censure of
such disaffected persons, but also to take a
special account of the diligence of the ministers,
elders, and presbyteries herein respective.
That's page 220.
6.
August 20, section 15, 1647.
And if by the declaration of both kingdoms,
that is, Scotland and England, joined in arms
in the year 1643, such as would not
take the covenant, were declared to be public
enemies to their religion and country, and that
they be censured and punished as professed adversaries
and malignant.
Page 335.
7.
Act for taking the covenant at the first
receiving of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
The General Assembly, according to the former recommendations,
doth ordain that all young students take the
covenant at their first entry into colleges, and
that hereafter all persons whatsoever take the covenant
at their first receiving of the Lord's Supper,
requiring hereby provincial assemblies, presbyteries, and universities to
be careful that this act be observed, and
account thereof taken in the visitation of universities
and particular kirks, and in the trial of
presbyteries.
Page 422.
8.
That all students of philosophy at their first
entry, and at their laureation, beholden to subscribe
the legion covenant, and be urged thereto, and
all other persons as they come to age
and discretion before their first receiving the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper.
Page 368.
Let us summarize what the above-cited acts
are saying.
First, observe who were obliged to subscribe the
covenants.
All members of this kirk and kingdom subscribe.
Every person may be obliged to subscribe, enjoining
all persons to subscribe the covenant under all
ecclesiastical censure.
Second, what happened to those who refused to
subscribe?
According to these acts, those who refused to
subscribe the covenants were to be censured.
Mr. Bacon's noting of an alleged exception, Zachary
Boyd, has been proven false, though even if
his scholarship was accurate, it would only serve
to prove that the ministers of Scotland were
being inconsistent and unfaithful to their stated acts
of General Assembly.
The reader is asked to look again at
the language used therein and to evaluate whether
Mr. Bacon has faithfully represented the position of
these faithful covenanters.
The Scottish General Assembly states that such as
would not take the covenant were declared to
be public enemies to their religion and country,
and that they be censured and punished as
professed adversaries and malignant.
Furthermore, the officers of the kirk were instructed
to proceed with the censures of the kirk
against such as shall refuse to subscribe the
covenant.
Third, what happened to those who broke covenant
after subscribing them?
Those who did subscribe and spoke against the
covenant suffered the same censure and were additionally
cited for perjury.
As I have demonstrated, once the distinct and
superadded obligation derived from the voluntary self-engagement
takes effect, the charge of perjury and covenant
-breaking are both appropriate and just.
On August 1, section 5, 1640, the General
Assembly said that such as have subscribed the
covenant and speak against the same, if he
be a minister, shall be deprived, and if
he continue so, being deprived, shall be excommunicated,
and if he be any other man, shall
be dealt with as perjured and satisfied publicly
for his perjury.
George Gillespie, Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly,
states, Those that refuse the covenant, reproach it,
or rail against it, ought to be looked
at as enemies to it, and dealt with
accordingly.
Refusers of the covenant and railers against it
are justly censured.
Thus it is clear that all were obliged
to take the covenants, and those who refused
or broke their vows were to be excommunicated.
Next we must ask ourselves, how long did
the General Assembly intend these acts to remain
in effect?
One year?
Ten years?
Or perpetually?
Obviously these acts were to be enforced as
long as the covenant to which they refer
remains in force.
The PRCE recognizes the faithful court of our
ancestors, and realizes that the everlasting covenant sworn
on our behalf still applies to the churches
of Canada and the United States, also many
other lands, all His Majesty's dominions at the
time the covenants were sworn.
Consequently, as Presbyterians, we cannot contradict the ruling
of a faithful General Assembly when it is
agreeable to the word of God.
Our withdrawing from, admonishing, and censuring those who
are guilty of breaking covenant is an example
of our willingness to uphold their just and
righteous rulings.
And if any man obey not our word
by this epistle, note that man, and have
no company with him, that he may be
ashamed.
Yet count him not as an enemy, but
admonish him as a brother.
2 Thessalonians 3, 14, 15 The Church of
Scotland clearly censured those who would not subscribe
to covenants.
This is further evidenced by the following excerpt.
And discerns and declares all and sundry who
either gainsay the word of the evangel received
and approved as the heads of the confession
of faith professed in Parliament in the year
of God 1560, specified also in the first
Parliament of King James the Sixth, and ratified
in this present Parliament, more particularly do express,
or that refused the administration of the holy
sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be
no members of the said Kirk within this
realm and true religion presently professed, so long
as they keep themselves so divided from the
society of Christ's body.
And the subsequent Acts 69, Parliament Six of
King James the Sixth declares that there is
no other face of Kirk, nor other face
of religion, than was presently at that time
by the favor of God established within this
realm.
That's from the National Covenant.
When it is said that all and sundry
who either gainsay the word of the evangel
received and approved as the heads of the
confession of faith are to be accounted no
members of the said Kirk within this realm
and true religion presently professed, so long as
they keep themselves so divided from the society
of Christ's body, they are saying precisely the
same thing as the PRCE.
Those who will not covenant and confess the
truth are to be barred from the sacraments
and familiar fellowship.
Is that the practice of the pretended presbytery
of the RPC?
Do they maintain that anybody who speaks or
acts against the confession or covenants are no
members of the said Kirk within this realm?
No, on the contrary, they profess to hold
communion and maintain familiar fellowship with a broad
spectrum of Christians who openly speak and act
against both.
This is evidenced by the fact, which they
do not deny, that they do not require
their members to agree not to speak and
act contrary to their church standards prior to
partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Rather, such requirements are only required of their
officers.
Is it not abundantly evident that they do
not uphold the principles of the Second Reformation?
Furthermore, Mr. Bacon's practice is contrary to the
example set by the First Reformation under the
godly influence of John Calvin in Geneva.
As Reg Barrow has accurately stated in his
article entitled Calvin Covenanting and Close Communion, it
is a well-documented fact that the Genevan
Presbytery, company of pastors, in 1536 sought to
excommunicate anyone who would not swear an oath
to uphold the Reformed doctrine as it was
set forth in their Confession of Faith.
T.
H.
L.
Parker writes, Since the evangelical faith had only
recently been preached in the city, and there
were still many Romanists, the ministers also urged
excommunication on the grounds of failure to confess
the faith.
The Confession of Faith, which all the citizens
and inhabitants of Geneva must promise to keep
and to hold, had been presented to the
Council on 10 November 1536.
Let the members of the Council be the
first to subscribe and then the citizens, in
order to recognize those in harmony with the
Gospel, and those loving rather to be of
the kingdom of the Pope than of the
kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Those who would not subscribe were to be
excommunicated.
And that's from John Calvin, a biography, page
63.
Additionally, the company of pastors in Geneva took
this one step further, enacting negative civil sanctions
like those of the covenanted Reformations found in
the Old Testament under Josiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Asa,
and Hezekiah, by commanding those who would not
swear to the Reformation to leave the city.
12 November 1537 It was reported that yesterday
the people who had not yet made their
oath to the Reformation were asked to do
so, street by street.
Whilst many came, many others did not do
so.
No one came from the German Quarter.
It was decided that they should be commanded
to leave the city if they did not
wish to swear to the Reformation.
And that's from the Reformation in Germany and
Switzerland, page 138.
See Reg Barrow's Calvin, Covenanting, and Close Communion,
pages 6 through 8.
Also, the fifth letter in his response to
Doug Wilson, in his book entitled Saul and
the Cave of Adullam.
These complete works are free on Stillwater's webpage
at www.swrb.com and follow the free
book's link.
The faithful contendings of the protesters exemplifying their
steadfast application of the biblical principles regarding withdrawal
and separation from corrupt individuals and pretended assemblies.
Another prime example of Reformation principles in speaking
plainly and acting consistently against unfaithful churches and
ministers was manifested by the faithful protesters of
the General Assembly of Scotland in 1651.
At this time, an unfaithful majority faction of
the General Assembly, called the Resolutioner Party, openly
broke their covenant vows and initiated a dispute
that quickly divided them from the faithful minority,
the protesters.
These compromisers, under pressure from the King, approved
the placement of men, called malignants for their
ungodly character, in the army and places of
public trust, contrary to the covenants and previous
acts of General Assembly.
Thus, by evident perjury, these Resolutioners made themselves
co-conspirators and accessories to the crimes that
followed the sad division of the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland.
Matthew Hutchison explains, "...the former party, the Resolutioners,
had among them men of high character and
worth, some of whom afterwards regretted the position
they had taken in this controversy.
They were more tolerant in the application of
their principles.
Among them, the second Charles found afterwards many
of his willing tools, and they constituted the
bulk of those who accepted the indulgences and
toleration, that is, the later compromises."
And that's from the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
Scotland, page 21.
The compromise of the Resolutioner party within the
General Assembly of Scotland led to a division
that remains unhealed, and a schism that effectively
set aside the original constitution of the Church
of Scotland.
The seriousness of this schism can be observed
in the following excerpts.
Note the actions of the faithful protester ministers
as they dealt with the unfaithful ministers of
the Resolutioner faction.
Mr. Samuel Rutherford, a protester, would not serve
the Lord's Supper with Pastors Blair and Wood,
who were Resolutioners, though they had most other
points of faith in common.
In the time of the difference between the
Resolutioners and Protesters, at a communion at St.
Andrews, he, that is, Samuel Rutherford, ran to
a sad height and refused to serve a
table with Misters Blair and Wood after all
the entreaty they could make.
At length, Mr. Blair was forced to serve
it himself.
And that's from Robert Gilmore's Samuel Rutherford, a
study, biographical and somewhat critical in the History
of the Scottish Covenant, page 201.
Obviously, I do not concur with the assessment
of Robert Gilmore that Mr. Rutherford ran to
a sad height when he refused to serve
the Lord's Supper with Robert Blair or James
Wood.
Rather, I believe Mr. Rutherford was acting consistently
with the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of
Faith in refusing to serve the Lord's Supper
with obstinately scandalous, perjured ministers.
Did Rutherford sin by refusing communion with perjured
but otherwise godly men?
No.
Instead, he acted faithfully and consistently in refusing
to serve the Lord's Supper with the scandalous.
Was he saying these men were no longer
Christians?
No.
He was attempting to correct and restore the
brethren he dearly loved by testifying against their
sin and not complying with their compromise.
And if Rutherford, who sought to apply faithfully
the biblical obligations declared in the Solemn League
and Covenant, was unable to serve the Lord's
Supper with those who have scandalously compromised their
covenant obligations, much more would he refrain from
serving the Lord's Supper to those known to
be guilty of such sins.
Rutherford aptly states, quote, Because the churches take
not care that ministers be savory and gracious,
from stearmen all apostasy and rottenness begin.
O, if the Lord would arise and purge
his house in Scotland!
As for church members, they ought to be
holy, and though all baptized be actu primo
members, yet such as remain habitually ignorant after
admonition are to be cast out, and though
they be not cast out certainly, as paralytic
or rottened members cannot discharge the functions of
life, so those that are scandalous, ignorant, malignant,
unsound in faith, lose their rights of suffrages
in election of officers, and are to be
debarred from the seals.
Nor can we defend our sinful practice in
this, it were our wisdom to repent of
our taking in the malignant party, who shed
the blood of the people of God, and
obstructed the work of God into places of
trust in the church, state, and the army,
contrary to our covenants, they continuing still enemies.
And that's from Rutherford's Survey of the Survey
of the Sum of Church Discipline, page 373.
Not only would consistent protesters not administer the
Lord's Supper with or to the Resolutioners, but
applying their doctrine uniformly, they called the Resolutioner
Assemblies pretended and would not compare before their
courts.
The records of the Church of Scotland reports
the following events which depict their godly and
constant principles.
At this session of General Assembly, Mr. Rutherford
gave in a protestation against the lawfulness of
the Assembly, containing the reasons thereof in the
name of the Kirk, subscribed with twenty-two
hands, and desired it might be read.
But it was delayed to be read, and
all that subscribed the remonstrance with some others
went away.
And that is from page 628.
Did the protesters sin when they walked out
of the meeting of the Scottish General Assembly,
1651?
Were they saying that the Resolutioner churches were
not Christian churches?
No, they simply would not recognize the pretended
authority of the Resolutioner's compromised majority.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do
evil, neither shalt thou speak in a cause
to decline after many to rest judgment.
Exodus 23.2 How does Mr. Bacon explain
the actions of these protesters?
Does he accuse them of being rash and
uncharitable for walking out of the General Assembly?
How does he explain Rutherford not serving communion
with Pastors Blair and Wood?
To date, Mr. Bacon's politically correct commentary upon
this matter seems decidedly undecided, and I could
hardly believe my eyes when I read in
his defense departed that the paper on dissociation
goes on to speak of the protester and
Resolutioner split in the Church of Scotland as
though it were germane to our nation and
time.
Sadly, for Mr. Bacon and his indefensible position,
the history of the Second Reformation is entirely
applicable to our nation and time, and he
is a living testimony that those who fail
to learn the lessons of history are doomed
to repeat them.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers
have set.
Proverbs 22.28 The faithful warriors of the
First and Second Reformation did not fail in
their duty toward those who acted or spoke
against their confessions and covenants.
They admonished, withdrew from, and even excommunicated those
compromised brethren who would not repent of their
sinful deeds.
The fact that these compromisers were otherwise godly
Reformed Presbyterians did not stop them from making
a clear testimony against them.
They would not recognize their pretended courts and
the openly bore witness against their schismatic schemes.
We simply seek to follow their godly example
while encouraging others to do the same.
Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let
not Judah offend.
And come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go
ye up to Bethaven, nor swear the Lord
liveth.
For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer.
Now the Lord will feed them as a
lamb in a large place.
Hosea 4 15 and 16 Accordingly, churches such
as the Reformation Presbyterian Church who obstinately retain
their unscriptural doctrine and practice must be withdrawn
from and testified against by admonition and suspension
from the Lord's table.
Their pretended courts must not be recognized as
anything other than schismatic attempts to destroy the
unity of Christ's church.
They must be avoided, not attended.
All the evidence points to the conclusion that
they have receded from the truth and apostatized
into a backsliding state of spiritual adultery.
Although they are yet considered true churches of
Christ as to being, they must sadly be
viewed as unfaithful churches as to well-being.
Like Israel of old, such unfaithful churches have
brought their lovers, false doctrine, unauthorized worship, tyrannical
government and undisciplined toleration, into the presence of
their heavenly husband.
Thus saith the Lord God, Because thy filthiness
was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through
thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all
the idols of thy abominations, and by the
blood of thy children which thou didst give
unto them, behold therefore, I will gather all
thy lovers with whom thou hast taken pleasure,
and all them that thou hast loved, with
all them that thou hast hated, I will
even gather them round about against thee, and
will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they
may see all thy nakedness.
John Calvin comments, That there is an universal
church, that there has been from the beginning
of the world, and will be even to
the end, we all acknowledge.
The appearance by which it may be recognized
is the question.
We place it in the word of God,
or, if anyone would so put it, since
Christ is her head, we maintain, that as
a man is recognized by his face, so
she is to be beheld in Christ.
As it is written, where the carcass is,
there will the eagles be gathered together.
Matthew 24.28 Again, there will be one
sheepfold and one shepherd.
John 10.16 But as the pure preaching
of the gospel is not always exhibited, neither
is the face of Christ always conspicuous.
1 Corinthians 11.19 Thence we infer that
the church is not always discernible by the
eyes of men, as the example of many
ages testified.
For in the time of the prophets, the
multitude of the wicked so prevailed that the
true church was oppressed, so also in the
time of Christ we see that the little
flock of God was hidden from men, while
the ungodly usurped to themselves the name of
the church.
But what will those who have eyes so
clear that they boast the church is always
visible to them make of Elijah, who thought
that he alone remained of the church?
1 Kings 19.10 In this indeed he
was mistaken, but it is a proof that
the church of God may be equally concealed
from us, especially since we know, from the
prophecy of Paul, that defection was predicted.
2 Thessalonians 2.3 Let us hold, then,
that the church is seen where Christ appears,
and where his word is heard, as it
is written, My sheep hear my voice.
John 10.27 But that at the instant
when the true doctrine was buried, the church
vanished from the eyes of men.
This church we acknowledge with Paul to be
the pillar and ground of the truth.
1 Timothy 3.15 Because she is the
guardian of sound doctrine, and by her ministry
propagates it to posterity, that it may not
perish from the world.
For seeing she is the spouse of Christ,
it is meet that she be subject to
him.
And as Paul declares, Ephesians 5.24, 2
Corinthians 11, 2 and 3, her chastity consists
in not being led away from the simplicity
of Christ.
She errs not, because she follows the truth
of God for her rule, but if she
recedes from this truth, she ceases to be
a spouse, and becomes an adulteress.
And that's taken from the articles agreed upon
by the faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris,
in reference to matters of faith at present
controverted with the antidote.
And that's from Calvin's Selected Works, Volume 1,
pages 102-103.
And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished
with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom
of a stranger?
Proverbs 5.20 They say, If a man
put away his wife, and she go from
him, and become another man's, shall he return
unto her again?
Shall not that land be greatly polluted?
But thou hast played the harlot with many
lovers, yet return again to me, saith the
Lord.
Jeremiah 3.1 To properly understand the Reformer's
doctrine of dissociation and separation, we must distinguish
between the settled and the broken state of
the church.
To properly understand the Covenanter position regarding dissociation
and separation from pretended authorities, the reader must
become familiar with another important distinction, that is,
the settled versus the broken state of the
church.
The nation of Scotland, 1638 to 1649, possessed
both a truly constituted General Assembly, and the
civil establishment of the true Reformed religion, thereby
enabling the church to enjoy the blessed privilege
of being settled in the land.
Our case in 1997 is vastly different.
We have no national Presbyterian General Assembly, nor
do we possess the civil establishment of the
one true Reformed religion.
Among the Reformers, such a disorganized state of
affairs was referred to as the broken state
of the church.
One of the most serious errors of Mr.
Bacon, and those like him, and one of
the main reasons he so frequently misunderstands the
Reformer's doctrine of dissociation and separation, is his
failure to grasp this important distinction.
Mr. Bacon is fond of quoting men like
Samuel Rutherford, James Durham, and George Gillespie, who
wrote extensively regarding true principles of separation.
What he fails to take into account is
that they were applying their principles to a
time when the church was nationally established and
bound by faithful Reformed covenants.
Those who fail to make this distinction are
constantly taking the scriptural principles of separation pertaining
to a national church, settled, and applying these
principles to the church in her broken and
unsettled state.
The results are disastrous.
Books are written like Mr. Bacon's The Visible
Church in the Outer Darkness, a book filled
with both popish error and independent confusion.
In his public misrepresentation of Kevin Reed, Mr.
Bacon practically ignored the necessary distinctions of the
Reformers being versus well-being, settled versus broken
state, and consequently led his readers to believe
something far different than the doctrine they actually
taught.
Through his false teachings, sincere children of God
are led to believe that separation from a
Christian church, even in a time of great
apostasy that is a broken state, should be
exceedingly rare.
Citing men like John McPherson, James Wood, and
Thomas Boston, who did not stand upon the
biblical principles of covenanted protesters like Samuel Rutherford,
George and Patrick Gillespie, James Guthrie, Robert McWard,
John Brown of Wemphrey, Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill,
and James Renick, Mr. Bacon has confused his
readers into confounding the faithful teaching of the
Second Reformation with the dissimulation of those who
were attempting to justify their backsliding and compromise.
He must be called to account for his
error.
See Appendix G, which is also read on
a separate tape entitled Eschewing Ecclesiastical Tyranny, The
Duty of Christ's Sheep.
Dear reader, take the time to carefully read
the following quotations.
Those who understand what is being said will
no longer be ensnared by Mr. Bacon's false
interpretation of the reformers.
Faithful martyr of God, James Renick, explains the
importance of this crucial distinction.
Quote, We distinguish between a church in a
reformed and settled state, and confirmed with the
constitutions of general assemblies and the civil sanctions
of parliament, and a church in a broken
and disturbed state.
In the former, abuses and disorders can be
orderly redressed and removed by church judicatories, but
not so in the latter.
Wherefore the most lawful, expedient, and conducible mean
for maintaining the attained unto reformation is to
be followed in the time of such confusions
and disturbances, and that is, as we think,
abstraction and withdrawing from such disorders in ministers,
which we cannot get other ways rectified.
And that's from an Informatory Vindication, page 61.
Again from Renick, we distinguish between a reformed
church enjoying her privileges and judicatories, and a
reformed church denuded of her privileges and deprived
of her judicatories.
In the former, people are to address themselves
unto church judicatories, and not to withdraw from
their ministers, especially for ordinary scandals.
But in the latter, when ministers are really
scandalous, though not juridically declared so, and duly
censurable according to the word of God, and
their own church's constitutions and censures cannot be
inflicted through the want of church judicatories, and
yet they still persist in their offensive courses,
people may do what is competent to them,
and testify their sense of the justness of
the censure to be inflicted by withdrawing from
such ministers, even without the presbyterial sentence.
Again, an Informatory Vindication, pages 61 and 62.
We hold that schism, or disowning and rejecting
of, or groundless and unwarrantable separating from, true
and faithful ministers, to be a very heinous,
hateful, and hurtful sin.
Yet this doth not hinder, but that it
may be a duty in a broken state
of the church to withdraw from ministers chargeable
with defection.
For seeing this church hath attained to such
a high degree of reformation, and seeing by
solemn covenants to the Almighty we have bound
ourselves to maintain and defend the same, seeing
by reason of the enemy's subtlety and cruelty,
and the fainting, falling, and failing of ministers,
so many dreadful defections have been introduced, embraced,
and countenanced, seeing in these times of distempering
confusions, we are now deprived of the remedy
of settled judicatories, whereunto we might recur for
rectifying of disorders, and seeing we are bound
to witness against these complying and backsliding courses,
whereby the wrath of God is so much
kindled against the land, therefore we hold it
as our duty that when a backsliding or
defection is embraced, avowed, and obstinately defended in
such things as have been reformed, either expressly
or equivalently, especially being witnessed against doctrinally, and
further confirmed by other testimonies, we judge it
lawful, reasonable, and necessary, in a declining, backsliding,
and troubled state of the church, to leave
that part of the church which hath made
such defection, whether ministers or professors, as to
a joint concurrence in carrying on the public
work, according as it is given in command
to Jeremiah 15.19, let them return unto
thee, but return not thou unto them.
And to adhere unto the other part of
the church, ministers and professors, whether more or
fewer, who are standing steadfastly to the defense
of the Reformation, witnessing against others who have
turned aside and declined therefrom, until the defections
of the backsliding party be confessed, mourned over,
and forsaken.
This is no separation from the church of
Scotland, but only a departing and going forth
from her sins, backslidings, and defections, as we
are commanded by the Lord."
Again from Informatory Vindication, pages 36 and 37.
Finally, I quote Alexander Shields, who wholeheartedly concurs
with Rennick, quote, In a constitute and settled
case of the church, enjoying her privileges and
judicatories, corruptions may be foreborne, and the offended
are not to withdraw before recourse to the
judicatories for an orderly redress.
But in a broken and disturbed state, when
there is no access to these courts of
Christ, then people, though they must not usurp
a power of judicial censuring these corruptions, yet
they may claim and exercise a discretive power
over their own practice, and by their withdrawing
from such ministers as are guilty of them,
signify their sense of the moral equity of
these censures that have been legally enacted against
these and the equivalent corruptions, and when they
should be legally inflicted.
As we do upon this ground, withdraw from
the paralatic curates, and likewise from some of
our covenanted brethren, upon the account of their
being chargeable with such corruptions and defections from
our Reformation, as we cannot but show our
dislike of.
Dear reader, do you see the importance of
these distinctions?
Do you see the error that can arise
from taking the just rules of separation and
applying them without distinction?
In the settled state of the Church, where
rightly constituted and established judicatories allow for the
orderly redress of abuses, separation should be exceedingly
rare, like Rutherford, Durham, and Gillespie teach.
However, in our broken state of the Church,
while we have no recourse to nationally established
judicatories, only to independent rival judicatories, we are
left to claim and exercise a discretive power
over our own practice, as Rutherford and the
protesters practiced when the corrupt resolution or majority
broke the Church of Scotland.
See Appendix G.
We testify against the corruptions of our nation's
churches and ministers by barring them from our
communion table, writing against their errors, and praying
for their reformation.
In this broken state of the Church, there
is no difference between how we are to
treat unfaithful churches and unfaithful individuals.
If God has commanded us to withdraw from
and avoid disorderly and obstinate brethren, how can
we deduce that we are to tolerate disorderly
and obstinate churches?
If the Church is so divided that gross
sin and error is protected by false judicatories,
then how are the children of God to
obtain a lawful hearing for their grievances?
Should they submit themselves to those who frame
mischief by abusing their pretended authority?
When the Church is so broken and disorganized
that disorderly and obstinate churches are going from
bad to worse, the answer is not to
plead for toleration.
Such toleration proclaims a liberty to sin and
promises ecclesiastical protection for unfaithfulness.
When the hands of the wicked are strengthened
and the children of God are encouraged to
tolerate evil, true religion is destroyed and reformation
is hindered.
Thus, Scripture teaches that true religion ought never
to require toleration, and false religion ought never
to be tolerated.
Those who rightly understand the distinction between the
broken and settled state of the Church know
that dissociation and separation are the only true
means of reformation when the Church has divided
into rival judicatories and receded from the truth.
Those who follow Mr. Bacon's impropriety will be
found propping up the hands of backsliders while
condemning those who plead for true reformation.
Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with
thee which frameth mischief by a law?
They gather themselves together against the soul of
the righteous and condemn the innocent blood.
But the Lord is my defense, and my
God is the rock of my refuge.
Psalm 94, 20-22 If thy brother the
son of thy mother, or thy son or
thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom,
or thy friend, which is as thine own
soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go
up and serve other gods, which thou hast
not known, thou nor thy fathers, namely of
the gods of the people which are round
about you, nigh unto thee, or far off
from thee, from the one end of the
earth even unto the other end of the
earth, thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity
him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him,
thine hand shall be first upon him to
put him to death, and afterwards the hand
of all the people.
Deuteronomy 13, 6-9 No doubt Mr. Bacon
thinks the Reformation Presbyterian Church to be a
faithful judicatory, and perhaps he would also include
such rival and contradictory judicatories as the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of North America, the pretended Covenanters,
or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
These churches, ministers, and brethren have all broken
covenant with God, and we can no more
own their judicatories than we can own the
judicatory of the Church of Rome.
While these brethren are more faithful than any
Romish communion, their defection and backsliding are of
such a scandalous nature that we can in
no way tolerate it for the sake of
unity.
For us to pass over something as serious
as perjury and covenant breaking would be for
us to join hands in silent compliance with
those things which we have sworn in our
covenants to extirpate and uproot.
Unless our brethren, whom we love, humble themselves
and repent, we see no other option than
to continue to pray for their restoration while
testifying against their defection.
And I will come near to you to
judgment, and I will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and
against false swearers, and against those that oppress
the hireling in his wages, the widow and
the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger
from his right, and fear not me, saith
the Lord of hosts.
Malachi 3.5 I close this section with
a faithful warning from the General Assembly of
Scotland, August 6, 1649, and would ask the
reader to apply their words to the ministers
and professing Christians across Canada and the United
States, even unto all the covenanted lands who
remain bound by the covenants of their forefathers.
Quote, It is no small grief to us
that the gospel and government of Jesus Christ
are so despised in the land that faithful
preachers are persecuted and cried down, that toleration
is established by law and maintained by military
power, and that the covenant is abolished and
buried in oblivion.
All which proceedings cannot but be looked upon
as directly contrary to the oath of God
lying upon us, and therefore we cannot eschew
his wrath when he shall come in judgment
to be a swift witness against those who
falsely swear against his name.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the
Church of Scotland, pages 472 and 473.
This concludes Covenanted Uniformity, the Protestant Remedy for
Disunity, being Chapter 3 of Greg Barrow's book,
The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.
Please note that this entire book is free
on Stillwater's Revival Books website, www.swrb.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 swrb at swrb.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.
Thank you for listening.
Mr. Thomas Manton's Epistle to the Reader, which
is published in the Free Presbyterian Publications edition
of the original Westminster Confession of Faith.
Christian reader, I cannot suppose thee to be
such a stranger in England as to be
ignorant of the general complaint concerning the decay
of the power of godliness, and more especially
of the great corruption of youth.
Wherever thou goest, thou wilt hear men crying
out of bad children and bad servants, whereas
indeed the source of the mischief must be
sought a little higher.
It is bad parents and bad masters that
make bad children and bad servants, and we
cannot blame so much their untowardness as our
own negligence in their education.
The devil hath a great spite at the
kingdom of Christ, and he knoweth no such
compendious way to crush it in the egg
as by the perversion of youth and supplanting
family duties.
He striketh at all those duties which are
public in the assemblies of the saints, but
these are too well guarded by the solemn
injunctions and dying charge of Jesus Christ, as
that he should ever hope totally to subvert
and undermine them.
But at family duties he striketh with more
success, because the institution is not so solemn,
and the practice is not so seriously and
conscientiously regarded as it should be, and the
omission is not so liable to notice and
public censure.
Religion was first hatched in families, and there
the devil seeketh to crush it.
The families of the patriarchs were all the
churches God had in the world for the
time, and therefore, I suppose, when Cain went
out from Adam's family, he is said to
go out from the face of the Lord,
Genesis 4, 16.
Now the devil knoweth that this is a
blow at the root, and a ready way
to prevent the succession of churches, if he
can subvert families, other societies and communities will
not long flourish and subsist with any power
and vigor, for there is the stock from
whence they are supplied both for the present
and future.
For the present, a family is the seminary
of church and state, and if children be
not well principled there, all miscarrieth.
A fault in the first concoction is not
mended in the second.
If youth be bred ill in the family,
they prove ill in church and commonwealth.
There is the first making or marring, and
the presage of their future lives to be
thence taken, Proverbs 20, verse 11.
By family discipline, officers are trained up for
the church, 1 Timothy 3, 4, one that
ruleth well his own house, and so forth.
And there are men bred up in subjection
and obedience.
It is noted, Acts 21, verse 5, that
the disciples brought Paul on his way with
their wives and children.
Their children probably are mentioned to intimate that
their parents would, by their own example and
affectionate farewell to Paul, breed them up in
a way of reverence and respect to the
pastors of the church.
For the future, it is comfortable certainly to
see a thriving nursery of young plants, and
to have hopes that God shall have a
people to serve him when we are dead
and gone, the people of God comforting themselves
in that, Psalm 102, 28, the children of
thy servants shall continue, and so forth.
Upon all these considerations, how careful should ministers
and parents be to train up young ones
whilst they are yet pliable, and, like wax,
capable of any form and impression in the
knowledge and fear of God, and betimes to
instill the principles of our most holy faith
as they are drawn into a short sum
in catechisms, and so altogether laid in the
view of conscience.
Surely these seeds of truth planted in the
field of memory, if they work nothing else,
will at least be a great check and
bridle to them, and, as the casting in
of cold water doth stay the boiling of
the pot, somewhat allay the fervors of youthful
lusts and passions.
I had, upon entreaty, resolved to recommend to
thee with the greatest earnestness the work of
catechizing, and, as a meet help, the usefulness
of this book, as thus printed with the
Scriptures at large.
But meeting with the private letter of a
very learned and godly divine, wherein that work
is excellently done to my hand, I shall
make bold to transcribe a part of it,
and offer it to public view.
The author, having bewailed the great distractions, corruptions,
and divisions that are in the church, he
thus represents the cause and cure.
Among others, a principal cause of these mischiefs
is the great and common neglect of the
governors of families in the discharge of that
duty which they owe to God for the
souls that are under their charge, especially in
teaching them the doctrine of Christianity.
Families are societies that must be sanctified to
God as well as churches, and the governors
of them have as truly a charge of
the souls that are therein as pastors have
of the churches.
But alas, how little is this considered or
regarded!
But while negligent ministers are, deservedly, cast out
of their places, the negligent masters of families
take themselves to be almost blameless.
They offer their children to God in baptism,
and there they promise to teach them the
doctrine of the gospel and bring them up
in the nurture of the Lord, but they
easily promise and easily break it, and educate
their children for the world and the flesh,
although they have renounced these and dedicated them
to God.
This covenant breaking with God and betraying the
souls of their children to the devil must
lie heavy on them here or hereafter.
They beget children and keep families merely for
the world and the flesh, but little consider
what a charge is committed to them and
what it is to bring up a child
for God and govern a family as a
sanctified society.
Oh, how sweetly and successfully would the work
of God go on if we would but
all join together in our several places to
promote it!
Men need not then run without sending to
be preachers, but they might find that part
of the work that belongeth to them to
be enough for them and to be the
best that they can be employed in.
Especially women should be careful of this duty,
because as they are most about their children
and have early and frequent opportunities to instruct
them, so this is the principal service they
can do to God in this world, being
restrained from more public work.
And doubtless many an excellent magistrate hath been
sent into the commonwealth, and many an excellent
pastor into the church, and many a precious
saint to heaven through the happy preparation of
a holy education, perhaps by a woman that
thought herself useless and unserviceable to the church.
Would parents but begin betimes and labor to
affect the hearts of their children with the
great matters of everlasting life, and to acquaint
them with the substance of the doctrine of
Christ, and, when they find in them the
knowledge and love of Christ, would bring them
then to the pastors of the church to
be tried, confirmed, and admitted to the further
privileges of the church, what happy, well-ordered
churches might we have!
Then one pastor need not be put to
do the work of two or three hundred
or thousand governors of families, even to teach
their children those principles which they should have
taught them long before, nor should we be
put to preach to so many miserable ignorant
souls that be not prepared by education to
understand us.
Nor should we have need to shut out
so many from holy communion upon the account
of ignorance that yet have not the grace
to feel it and lament it, nor the
wit and patience to wait in a learning
state till they are ready to be fellow
citizens with the saints and of the household
of God.
But now they come to us with aged
self-conceitedness, being past children and yet worse
than children still, having the ignorance of children,
but being overgrown the teachableness of children, and
think themselves wise, yea, wise enough to quarrel
with the wisest of their teachers, because they
have lived long enough to have been wise,
and the evidence of their knowledge is their
aged ignorance.
And they are readier to flee in our
faces for church privileges than to learn of
us and obey our instructions till they are
prepared for them, that they may do them
good, like snappish curs that will snap us
by the fingers for their meat, and snatch
it out of our hands, and not like
children that stay till we give it to
them.
Parents have so used them to be unruly,
that ministers have to deal but with too
few but the unruly.
And it is for want of this laying
the foundation well at first that professors themselves
are so ignorant as most are, and that
so many, especially of the younger sort, do
swallow down almost any error that is offered
them, and follow any sect of dividers that
will entice them, so it be but done
with earnestness and plausibility.
For alas, though by the grace of God
their hearts may be changed in an hour,
whenever they understand but the essentials of the
faith, yet their understandings must have time and
diligence to furnish them with such knowledge as
must establish them, and fortify them against deceits.
Upon these and many the like considerations, we
should entreat all Christian families to take more
pains in this necessary work, and to get
better acquainted with the substance of Christianity.
And to that end, taking along some moving
treatises to awake the heart, I know not
what work should be fitter for their use
than that compiled by the assembly at Westminster,
a synod of as godly, judicious divines, notwithstanding
all the bitter words which they have received
from discontented and self-conceited men, I verily
think, as ever England saw.
Though they had the unhappiness to be employed
in calamitous times, when the noise of wars
did stop men's ears, and the licentiousness of
wars did set every wanton tongue and pen
at liberty to reproach them, and the prosecution
and event of those wars did exasperate partial
discontented men to dishonor themselves by seeking to
dishonor them, I dare say if in the
days of old, when councils were in power
and account, they had had but such a
council of bishops as this of presbyters was,
the fame of it for learning and holiness,
and all ministerial abilities would, with very great
honor, have been transmitted to posterity.
I do therefore desire that all masters of
families would first study well this work themselves,
and then teach it their children and servants,
according to their several capacities.
And if they once understand these grounds of
religion, they will be able to read other
books more understandingly, and hear sermons more profitably,
and confer more judiciously, and hold fast the
doctrine of Christ more firmly than ever you
are like to do by any other course.
First, let them read and learn the shorter
catechism, and next the larger, and lastly, read
the Confession of Faith."
Thus far he whose name I shall conceal,
though the excellency of the matter and present
style will easily discover him, because I have
published it without his privity and consent, though
I hope not against his liking and approbation,
I shall add no more but that I
am thy servant in the Lord's work, Thomas
Manton.