Covenanted Uniformity, the Protestant Remedy for Disunity, being
Chapter 3 of Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted
Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.
Hello, I'm Larry Berger.
You're about to hear the most clear exposition
of the Biblical Protestant doctrine of the ordinance
of covenanting that I believe can be found
anywhere today.
Regrettably, time and circumstantial restrictions have prevented me
from giving a prefatory overview of this subject
and its vital importance.
However, as the title of these tapes indicates,
the covenanted uniformity practiced by various reformers and
faithful Protestants was truly the Protestant remedy for
disunity.
They sought for and vowed themselves to true
unity, that is, unity that comes, as Paul
says in 1 Corinthians 1.10, from being
of the same mind and in the same
judgment concerning Biblical doctrine, worship, and church government
and discipline, in contrast to the false unity
promoted today, which is but unity in name
and utterly destructive of truth and godliness.
As you listen, please consider whether what you're
currently being taught and what so-called Protestant
churches today are practicing is actually the Biblical
Protestantism of the Reformation.
If not, why not, and what then are
we to do?
As an introductory answer to these questions, I've
decided to include here my narrator's preface for
Eschewing Ecclesiastical Tyranny, the Duty of Christ's Sheep,
which is Appendix G of the Covenanted Reformation
Defended.
Although this preface does not address the ordinance
of covenanting directly, I believe it is nevertheless
very relevant, and I trust it will prove
a helpful forerunner to Barrow's treatment on covenanting,
one that provokes us to love and good
works and a greater appreciation of our Savior's
mercy.
May God richly bless you as you hear
expounded the Biblical old paths wherein is rest
for our souls, Jeremiah 6.16. Please note
that this entire book is free on Stillwaters
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.swrb.com.
Let us therefore remember that whenever Church unity
is commended to us, this is required, that
while our minds agree in Christ, our wills
should also be joined with mutual benevolence in
Christ.
Paul, therefore, while urging us to it, takes
it as his foundation that there is one
God, one faith, and one baptism.
Indeed, wherever Paul teaches us to feel the
same and will the same, he immediately adds,
in Christ, or according to Christ.
He means that apart from the Lord's word,
there is not an agreement of believers, but
a faction of wicked men.
We therefore conclude that among the godly, the
communion of the Church ought not to extend
so far that if it degenerates into profane
and corrupted rites, they have to follow it
headlong.
Some will therefore ask me what counsel I
would like to give to a believer who
thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where
he may not worship God purely, but is
forced by the common practice to accommodate himself
to bad things.
The first advice would be to leave, that
is, to relocate if he could.
If someone has no way to depart, I
would counsel him to consider whether it would
be possible for him to abstain from all
idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and
spotless toward God in both body and soul.
Then, since we are to abstain from all
such idolatry, let him worship God in private,
praying him to restore his poor church to
its right estate.
Hello, I'm Larry Berger.
These powerful quotes from Book 4, Chapter 2
of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion,
and from his anti-Nicodemite writings, forthcoming from
Protestant Heritage Press, demonstrate that while we are
to place the highest premium on the unity
of the Church, we must be certain that
it is true scriptural unity we are promoting
and not a satanic substitute.
Indeed, this worthy Reformer is emphatic that true
unity is so precious to Christ and his
people that if anything but the real thing
is presented to the Church, she is to
reject it and wait prayerfully for such time
that God will bring about true, lasting unity.
To accept tawdry substitutes for biblical unity, those
that promote unity at the expense of any
of the least of the truths of the
Word of God, those that make unity an
end in itself, rather than subservient to the
promotion and preservation of the truth and the
pure worship of God, is not to preserve
Christ's body whole, but to rip her into
a thousand pieces and to court the wrath
of her jealous husband.
Such is the state of affairs in the
Church today, where it seems all schemes but
the biblical plan for unity are championed, and
where when so-called unity is attained, truth
and purity are always the losers.
One of the precious fundamental teachings of Scripture
recovered in the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine
of private judgment, that is, that each individual
Christian has both the right and the responsibility
to test all that is put before him
for acceptance, and to believe and to practice
that and only that which is agreeable to
the Scriptures.
Thus the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts, God
alone is the Lord of the conscience, and
hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are in anything contrary
to his word, or beside it in matters
of faith or worship, so that to believe
such doctrines or to obey such commandments out
of conscience is to betray true liberty of
conscience, and the requiring of an implicit faith
and an absolute and blind obedience is to
destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.
That's chapter 20, section 2.
In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic Church maintains
the infallibility of the Pope in matters of
faith or morals, and asserts that it is
the domain of the Holy Mother Church, not
that of individual believers, to determine the true
sense or meaning of the Scriptures.
Thus, in the Creed of Pope Pius IV,
1564, we find, I also admit the Holy
Scripture, according to that sense or meaning which
our Holy Mother, the Church, has held and
does hold, to which Church it belongs to
judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the Scriptures.
Neither will I ever take and interpret them
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of
the Fathers.
Notwithstanding these blasphemous and despotic assertions, however, private
judgment, as will be shown, is the privilege
and duty of all believers.
Indeed, it is essential to the unity and
purity of Christ's Church, so much so that
there can be no biblical unity without it,
and it also affords the last defense against
the kind of arbitrary, soul-damaging, and even
damning, tyranny and error exemplified by, but not
limited to, the Roman Catholic Church.
Lamentably, churches wearing the name Protestant have, since
the time of the Protestant Reformation, increasingly embraced
numerous Romanist errors.
These include a false and dangerous conception of
the visible Church, tyrannical doctrines of ecclesiastical and
civil authority, corruptions of the sacraments, false views
of free will and the nature of man,
and other points of Arminianism in doctrine, Arminianism
in worship, such as the use of choirs,
celebration of holy days like Christmas and Easter,
Church calendars with their various days and seasons
and pictures of Christ, and perversions of Church
government and discipline, for example, Episcopalianism, Congregationalism, and
Independence.
As you will hear on this tape, some
have even gone to the point of denying
the fundamental doctrine of sola scriptura, that is,
that the Bible is the alone infallible rule
of faith and practice, by denying private judgment,
which is a natural and necessary consequence of
sola scriptura.
Because even this most vital teaching is being
eroded and attacked, which, if it continues, will
plunge the Church back into a full-fledged
slavery to error and idolatry, as was the
case before the Reformation, I'd like to spend
a few moments considering how prominent the doctrine
of private judgment is in the Scriptures.
By so doing, I hope to fix more
firmly in our minds the privilege and duty
we have to eschew, or shun, ecclesiastical tyranny,
and thereby to enhance the usefulness of Mr.
Barrow's concise explanation and defense of private judgment.
By giving careful heed to the Word of
God and to the testimony of our faithful
Reformed forefathers, to which testimony the Bible commands
us to listen, Proverbs 1.8, Jeremiah 6
.16, Hebrews 11.4, 13.17, and so
forth, we will be led to a fresh
appreciation of one of the chief benefits purchased
for us by the blood and sufferings of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and to a renewed
holy hatred of all that is contrary to
this precious benefit.
By this means, we will be equipped to
recover and maintain the true biblical unity of
Christ's Church and end the multitudinous schisms currently
afflicting her and grieving and dishonoring her Lord.
The Scriptures confirm and urge the right and
duty of private judgment in numerous ways.
First, we see it in the biblical conception
of authority, where God alone bears absolute, unqualified
rule over men's consciences.
The Lord commands us, Be not servants to
men, 1 Corinthians 7.23, while insisting as
the ultimate reason for believing and obeying Him
that I am the Lord thy God, Exodus
20.2, and so forth.
Thus the apostles expressly said they were only
helpers of our faith and not lords over
it, 2 Corinthians 1.24, and referred to
their ministry as existing only for the purpose
of edification, 2 Corinthians 10.8 and 13
.10. They expressly taught they had authority only
insofar as their officiations were according to the
truth, 2 Corinthians 13.8, and not simply
because they claimed a title and held an
ecclesiastical office.
We can only give implicit faith, then, to
the Lord God and not to any, even
the most faithful church or leader.
To do otherwise is to ascribe to them
an incommunicable attribute of God, blasphemous, idolatrous, and
perilous indeed.
Moreover, every command to submit to church leadership
necessarily implies this duty.
The Bible tells us that we are to
submit to, emulate, and follow faithful leaders in
churches, for example, 1 Timothy 5.17 and
Hebrews 13.17. Faithful is not here a
meaningless adjective, but rather presupposes sound scriptural evaluation
of this leadership on our parts.
The same applies to God's command to receive
faithful doctrine.
We are as well frankly and soberly told
of the existence of false teachers not outside
the church, but within the church.
We must be certain here, however, to distinguish
the various types of false teachers.
Some men, like Apollos, are godly and competent,
but simply uninstructed in the whole counsel of
God.
Others, like Nicodemus, John chapter 3, have no
business teaching, not yet at least, as they
are incompetent in their doctrinal knowledge.
Others have been soundly instructed, but, like Peter,
have fallen back into their old sin and
errors.
Still others are described in the most fearful
terms, Satan's ministers, 2 Corinthians 11.15, deceivers
and being deceived, 2 Timothy 3.13, twice
dead and clouds without water, Jude 12, and
in the case of the man of sin,
who the Reformers identified as the office of
the Pope, one who exalts himself above God
and is, like Judas, a son of perdition,
2 Thessalonians 2.3. Obviously, if we are
to identify any of these errant teachers, we
must judge them ourselves, individually, by criteria independent
of their mere profession to be teachers and
leaders, or faithful churches and denominations, or their
insistence that the Bible supposedly says we are
to submit to them.
And, in fact, this is exactly what we
observe in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit
highly commends such examples for our imitation.
Thus the Bereans are said to be more
noble than the Thessalonians, because they not only
heard the Apostle Paul, but heard him with
a ready-minded, careful discernment, searching the Scriptures
daily whether those things were so, Acts 17
.11. Likewise, the Ephesian elders in Revelation 2
were praised by Christ, because they tried them
which said they were apostles and were not,
and found them liars, Revelation 2.2. Whereas
the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira were sternly
rebuked for merely tolerating false guides, warning that
those who tolerated these teachers, though they themselves
were orthodox, were nevertheless subject to the judgments
sent upon the false teachers, see also Revelation
18.4. Finally, as if these overwhelming scriptural
evidences and arguments weren't enough, we have the
plain command of God throughout the entire Bible.
Examples are so numerous that we are forced
to limit ourselves to just a few.
In Deuteronomy 13 we are forewarned that God
will test us by allowing false prophets to
arise who will have every seemingly good qualification
to commend us to believe them, and yet
whose doctrine will lead us away from the
true God.
Solomon is emphatic concerning the need to flee
from error and erroneous teachers.
Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that
causeth to err from the words of knowledge.
Proverbs 19.27 Both Isaiah and the Lord
Jesus Christ Himself warn us that if we
follow unsound instruction we will suffer the severe
consequences.
For the leaders of this people cause them
to err, and they that are led of
them are destroyed.
His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant,
they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark.
Let them alone, they be blind leaders of
the blind, and if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Isaiah 9.16 and 56.10, Matthew 15
.14 And we should note here, as was
alluded above, that it is not simply teachers
who we regard to be non-Christians or
obstinate opponents to the truth that we are
to take heed of and avoid.
This ought to be evident, for a teacher
as such should be judged by his teaching,
not by whether we think he'll spend eternity
in heaven, though this is obviously a vital
matter.
Just because he's qualified for heaven does not
mean he's qualified to teach and lead Christ's
sheep.
It is also plainly taught in the verses
themselves, for they do not say that the
primary reason the people are being led astray
is because the teachers are unsaved, though in
many cases this is indeed the ultimate reason
for their teaching error, but because they are
blind to and ignorant of the truth, and
their doctrine causes the people to err.
We are thus forbidden every bit as much
from sitting ourselves under ignorant, unsafe teachers as
we are from sitting under those who are
likely unsaved, ravenous wolves.
Many more instances can be found in the
New Testament.
Indeed, one need only consider that most of
the New Testament itself was written to refute
errors and erring teachers, and thereby to confirm
and protect Christ's sheep.
Thus, in a very real sense, the New
Testament en masse is a direct commandment to
judge and reject all false teaching and teachers.
For the sake of brevity, however, we will
consider only one more clear command, Romans 16,
17.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned, and avoid them.
Notice that there are three commands here, two
explicit and one implicit.
The implicit command is that we ensure that
we ourselves know the apostolic doctrine, the whole
counsel of God, Acts 20.26, the doctrine
which we have learned.
The first explicit command is to mark, that
is, to identify, to make careful note of,
those who deviate from this doctrine, thereby causing
schisms and all manner of damage to the
Church of Christ.
The second explicit command flows from it.
We are to avoid, shun, or eschew all
such teachers, churches, or denominations.
For it is obvious that if one teacher
who thus causes schism is to be avoided,
how much more an entire church or denomination
which is causing such division by its false
doctrines.
Interestingly, the command to mark in this passage
is the same Greek word used in Philippians
3.17, where we are commanded to mark
faithful teachers and to emulate their faithfulness.
Finally, note how serious a matter it is
for us to identify and separate from such
false teachers and teachings.
Paul beseeches us, earnestly entreating that we do
so, and commands us by invoking the terrible
name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This single consideration alone, the invocation of the
name of the Lord, recall the language in
Exodus, I am the Lord thy God, should
overwhelmingly compel us to follow through carefully on
this command.
All the more should we do so when
in conjunction with this we consider that it
is taught either expressly or by implication from
one end of the Bible to the other.
Even from this cursory view of the doctrine
of private judgment, its prominence in Scripture and
the great care employed by the Holy Spirit
in communicating it to us are manifest.
It is precisely because Christ's sheep do not
use this precious gift and then separate from
those who are ignorant blind guides or who
are obstinately holding to error that the blindness,
error, disunity, and decline in practical godliness characterizing
the church today continue and thrive.
With the exercise of private judgment these grievous
sins could not continue.
Without the exercise of private judgment they will
not cease.
Dear brethren, we have a command not from
the reformers, but from the Lord Jesus Christ
to use this private judgment and to act
on it accordingly.
Indeed, we have more than a command.
He has purchased it for us with His
own blood and given us the Holy Spirit
in order to employ it.
He will bless us if we practice it
scripturally and His anger will follow us if
we don't.
He is honored greatly when we faithfully exercise
it.
It is the height of impiety and blasphemy
when we neglect it.
Let us then not be those who maintain
and even widen the breaches in the walls
of Christ Jerusalem, but those who instead endeavor
to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace.
Ephesians 4.3 May God bless all of
us with peace and joy as we stand
fast in the freedom wherewith Christ has made
us free.
Covenanted uniformity, the Protestant remedy for disunity, being
chapter 3 of Greg Barrow's book The Covenanted
Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.
Misrepresentation number 3 The Puritan Reformed Church that
is PRCE maintains that a church cannot be
truly and biblically constituted without formally swearing and
adopting the solemn league and covenant.
First, Mr. Bacon asserts that the PRCE maintains
that taking the solemn league and covenant is
necessary to exist as a truly constituted church.
Quote, Essentially the difference between the Reformation Presbyterian
Church and PRCE is that the Reformation Presbyterian
Church maintains that a church can be truly
and biblically constituted without swearing the solemn league
and covenant and the PRCE claims that a
church is not a properly, truly, biblically constituted
church if it has not formally adopted the
solemn league and covenant.
That's from Defense Departed.
Again, the issue is strictly whether the solemn
league and covenant is a necessary document in
order for a church to be a properly,
truly, biblically constituted church.
Again, from Defense Departed.
Second, Mr. Bacon argues that the solemn league
and covenant is used by the Stealites in
principally the same way as Rome uses its
doctrine of tradition.
Quote, Neither is this a minor distinction.
The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches maintain that the
church is built on the apostles and prophets,
Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Ephesians 2
.20. The Romanist Church maintains that the church
is built upon scripture plus the traditions of
the church.
Without the tradition, there is no true constitution.
While the contents of the traditions differ between
the Roman Catholic Church and the Stealites, the
principle is the same.
Without the right tradition, no constitutional church can
exist.
This distinction is essential to the very definition
of Protestantism.
Epistemologically speaking, sola scriptura is prior even to
sola fide or solo Christo.
From Defense Departed.
Third, Mr. Bacon denies that the solemn league
and covenant binds him to historical or accidental
aspects of the document, but admits it does
bind him to moral duties only so far
as they directly apply to God's law.
Quote, So then, we account the solemn league
and covenant, an edifying historical document which contains
in it several moral duties, but we deny
that the existence of moral duties within a
document binds subsequent generations of the church to
the historical and accidental aspects of the document.
As Calvin said, these things should be accommodated
to the varying circumstances of each age and
nation.
It should further be noted that whatever in
a document is a moral duty is a
moral duty so far and only so far
as it is a direct application of God's
moral law.
That's from Defense Departed.
I will deal with the two false accusations
first, and then proceed to discuss Mr. Bacon's
erring comments regarding the binding nature of the
solemn league and covenant.
Does the Puritan Reformed Church maintain that swearing
and adopting the solemn league and covenant is
necessary to the definition of a truly constituted
church as to essence?
In the previous section, I demonstrated that the
PRCE maintains that, strictly speaking, the only mark
necessary to the being or essence of a
true visible church is a visible profession of
the truth and doctrine of godliness.
For this reason, the PRCE has always believed
the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett to be
a true church as to its being.
The reason I have devoted so much time
to these ecclesiological distinctions is that the huge
majority of Mr. Bacon's unqualified libel is based
upon his misunderstanding of this one concept.
His charge that we maintain that it is
necessary to swear the solemn league and covenant
to be a truly constituted church, while failing
to qualify what he means by the word
church, is a perfect example of his inability
to apply this necessary distinction.
The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, PRCE, unequivocally
states that it is not necessary to swear
the solemn league and covenant to be a
truly constituted church as to essence.
First, Mr. Bacon's inability to distinguish the being
from the well-being of the church has
again led him to make a seriously flawed
and unqualified accusation about the PRCE.
In this respect, I judge Mr. Bacon's conduct
to be a violation of the Ninth Commandment.
His sin is aggravated by the fact that
he is publicly sinned while holding the office
of a minister of Christ.
His testimony against us has led his followers
to fight against that which is agreeable to
God's word and intended for their edification.
Those who believe what he is saying should
carefully consider to whom they turn for counsel,
lest his bad manners and shirlish libel become
for them an example to follow.
The true state of the question.
This leads us to consider the next topic
which stands in need of clarification.
Mr. Bacon, either by ignorance or design, has
directed all the attention to the wrong question.
He wishes to make the PRCE say that
it is necessary to take the covenants in
order to be a Christian church, essa, or
being.
A more informed opponent would understand that the
question truly revolves around whether or not it's
necessary to the well-being of a Christian
church to keep the promises representatively made by
their forefathers.
Taking the covenants are not an absolute necessity
to the essential constitution of the church, and
we have never, in any of our writing
or preaching, said they were.
Instead, we have maintained that, in a covenanted
land where lawful promises have already been made,
they are necessary to keep for the well
-being of our constitution and for the integrity
of our witness for Christ.
Lawful promises must necessarily be kept, and covenants,
once made, are necessary to own, adopt, and
renew, lest we open ourselves to the charge
of taking the Lord's name in vain.
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the
Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to
pay it, for the Lord thy God will
surely require it of thee, and it would
be sin in thee.
Deuteronomy 23.21 Therefore, dear reader, I ask
you not to let Mr. Bacon's vague notions
cloud the question.
The question is about the well-being of
the church and not its being, about whether
a church is being faithful to covenant promises
already made, and not about whether a church
is Christian or pagan.
Practically, we must determine whether we ought to
approve of and associate with churches who are
unfaithfully violating binding covenant obligations, and whether or
not we are duty-bound to conscionably withdraw
from them as covenant breakers.
The importance of this question must not be
underestimated.
Those who approve of and associate with obstinate
covenant breakers are accomplice to their crimes, while
those who testify against them remain free of
their sinful influence and just punishment.
Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in vain.
Deuteronomy 5.11 The Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton, PRCE, maintains that, in a land already
bound by the covenants, it is necessary to
own and renew the national covenant and the
solemn legion covenant to be a truly constituted
church as to well-being, that is, a
faithful church.
The PRCE has never said that the covenants
are necessary to the existence of a church,
but rather that the covenants are necessary to
the well-being of a church, assuming, of
course, that the church in question has descended
from the original covenanting churches of England, Ireland,
and Scotland.
Our forefathers made covenant promises on our behalf,
and we cannot preserve or maintain a faithful
testimony while ignoring their formal and material obligations.
For a nation, church, or individual to ignore
the obligations formally laid upon them by their
ancestors would be to open themselves to the
legitimate charges of covenant-breaking and perjury, both
of which are fundamentally destructive to the well
-being of the Church of Christ and to
the perfecting of the saints.
This would be to willingly and purposely subvert
the intended purpose of the ordinance of covenanting
as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
Chapter 25, Section 3.
Quote, Unto this Catholic and visible 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.
Since the appearance of Brian Schwartley's slanderous open
letter, April 1997, and especially since Mr. Bacon's
defense departed appeared on the FPCR website, August
1997, young and inexperienced, and some who should
have known better, believers have come to the
sad conclusion that the PRCE does not think
that anybody is a Christian church unless they
take the covenants.
We have received calls and letters from some
brethren indicating that Mr. Bacon's scandalous misrepresentations have
sinfully affected some dear people, and we cannot
adequately express how grieved we are by this
turn of events.
The misrepresentations expressed in Mr. Bacon's defense departed
are among the most ignorant and dishonest I
have encountered from a man of his supposed
caliber of scholarship.
How he can have a clear conscience regarding
what he has written is beyond my comprehension.
I do pray that God will grant him
repentance in this matter.
Again, for the sake of those who believed
Mr. Bacon's report, I repeat, the PRCE unequivocally
states that it is not not not necessary
to swear the covenants to be a truly
constituted church, as to essence.
If those who oppose us cannot believe our
explicit statements, then I fear our arguments will
have little effect upon such a calloused prejudice.
Mr. Bacon ignorantly compares us to keepers of
Roman Catholic tradition.
Immediately after Mr. Bacon utters his unqualified charges,
he compares us with the Roman Catholic Church,
which teaches that all who do not accept
her traditions are to be considered non-Christian
churches.
While he represents the position of the Roman
Catholic Church correctly, he proceeds to violently twist
our meaning into something far different from what
we have ever taught.
The Catholic Church, in her most recent official
catechism, says, quote, The sole Church of Christ
is that which our Savior, after his resurrection,
entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and
the other apostles to extend and rule it.
The Church constituted and organized as a society
in the present world subsists in the Catholic
Church, which is governed by the successor of
Peter and by bishops in communion with him.
That's from the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
page 234.
The The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism
states, For it is through Christ's Catholic Church
alone, which is the universal help toward salvation,
that the fullness of the means of salvation
can be obtained.
It was also to the apostolic college alone,
of which Peter is the head, that we
believe our Lord entrusted all the blessings of
the new covenant in order to establish on
earth the one body of Christ into which
all those who should be fully incorporated, who
belong in any way to the people of
God.
Again I remind the reader of Mr. Bacon's
charge, Neither is this a minor distinction.
The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches maintain that the
Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets,
Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Ephesians 2
.20. The Romanist Church maintains that the Church
is built upon Scripture plus the traditions of
the Church.
Without the tradition, there is no true constitution.
While the contents of the traditions differ between
the Roman Catholic Church and the Stealites, the
principle is the same.
Without the right tradition, no constitutional church can
exist.
This distinction is essential to the very definition
of Protestantism.
Epistemologically speaking, sola scriptura is prior even to
sola fide or solo Christo, from defense departed.
It is true that the Church of Rome
puts tradition and Scripture on the same level
of authority as the following citation demonstrates.
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as
it is put down in writing under the
breath of the Holy Spirit, and holy tradition
transmits in its entirety the word of God
which has been entrusted to the Apostles, so
that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they
may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad
by preaching.
As a result, the Church to whom the
transmission and interpretation of revelation is entrusted does
not derive her certainty about all revealed truths
from the holy Scriptures alone.
Both Scripture and tradition must be accepted and
honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 31.
Does the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton equate
the covenants with Scripture as Mr. Bacon misrepresents?
The PRCE's first term of communion requires, quote,
an acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament
to be the word of God and the
alone infallible rule of faith and practice.
Our fourth term of communion states, quote, that
public social covenanting is an ordinance of God
obligatory on churches and nations under the New
Testament, that the National Covenant and the Psalm
-Ligon Covenant are an exemplification of this divine
institution, and that these deeds are of continued
obligation upon the moral person, and in consistency
with this, that the renovation of these covenants
at Arkansas, Scotland, 1712, was agreeable to the
word of God.
Notice that our covenants are said to be
agreeable to God's word and not equal to
God's word.
The word of God is our alone infallible
rule of faith and practice, while the covenants
are said to be subordinately agreeable to God's
word.
The papists say that tradition and scripture are
to be equally reverenced, while we say that
all our standards are subordinated to the word
of God.
How can Mr. Bacon fail to notice the
difference?
That which is humanly composed, though agreeable to
God's word, is subordinate to God's word and
not equal to it.
Consequently, it is impossible and dishonest to misrepresent
the position of the PRCE as making the
covenants equal with scripture in the same sense
as Rome equates scripture and papal tradition.
I do not understand how Mr. Bacon can
miss something so patently obvious.
Since I do not believe that Mr. Bacon
is feebleminded, I conclude that he intended something
more sinister by making this comparison.
Mr. Bacon unwittingly becomes an Arminian spokesman.
To demonstrate how far off the mark Mr.
Bacon actually is, I must now refer to
an e-mail discussion held between Pastor PRCE
and Mr. Bacon on December 18, 1996.
In this correspondence, Mr. Bacon objects to Pastor
PRCE's position by writing, You have made the
solemn legion covenant the rule of faith and
practice.
By referring to the non-necessity of taking
a particular covenant as a sin, you have
made it the, or at least a, rule
of faith and practice.
It is here that Mr. Bacon displays his
significant ignorance on this subject.
Samuel Rutherford heard this exact objection from the
Arminians of his day, and I asked the
reader to observe how closely Mr. Bacon's objection
matches that of the Arminians.
Mr. Bacon states, You have made the solemn
legion covenant the rule of faith and practice,
or at least a rule of faith and
practice.
Samuel Rutherford replies, Arminians argue a confession or
covenant is not a rule of faith, it
hath not the lowest place in the church.
The covenant written and sealed in Nehemiah's time
was a secondary rule of faith, in the
same sense as the PRCE's fourth term of
communion, and a rule insofar as it agreed
with the law of Moses.
For they enter in a curse and an
oath to walk in God's law, not to
give their sons and daughters in marriage to
the heathen, not to buy victuals from the
heathen on the Sabbath, to charge themselves to
give money to maintain the service of God.
Nehemiah 9.38.10.1-3.29-32.
Which written covenant was not scripture, and Acts
15, the decrees of the synod, was not
formally scripture, yet to be observed as a
secondary rule.
And that's from Rutherford's Free Disputation Against Pretended
Liberty of Conscience, page 25.
According to Rutherford, Nehemiah's covenant was necessary to
be taken, as was the directive of the
assembly of elders and apostles in Acts 15.
The necessity of obeying these human constitutions was
based on the fact that they were agreeable
to scripture.
Though both were subordinate to God's word, I
observe that Rutherford rightly concludes that they form
a secondary rule of faith, and thus they
become necessarily obliging upon all for whom they
were intended.
Consider the necessity of the covenant laid upon
the tribes of Israel in the fifteenth year
of Asa, where whosoever would not seek the
Lord God of Israel should be put to
death.
And when Asa heard these words and the
prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage
and put away the abominable idols out of
all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and
out of the cities which he had taken
from Mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of
the Lord that was before the porch of
the Lord.
And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin and
the strangers with them out of Ephraim and
Manasseh, and out of Simeon, for they felt
him out of Israel in abundance when they
saw that the Lord his God was with
him.
So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in
the third month in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Asa, and they offered unto
the Lord the same time of the spoil
which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and
seven thousand sheep.
And they entered into a covenant to seek
the Lord God of their fathers with all
their heart and with all their soul, that
whosoever would not seek the Lord God of
Israel should be put to death, whether small
or great, whether man or woman.
And they swore unto the Lord with a
loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets,
and with cornets.
And all Judah rejoiced at the oath, for
they had sworn with all their heart, and
sought him with their whole desire.
And he was found of them, and the
Lord gave them rest round about.
Would Mr. Bacon also upbraid Asa, saying, You
have made the covenant of Israel a rule
of faith and practice, by referring to the
non-necessity of taking a particular covenant as
a sin, you have made it the, or
at least a, rule of faith and practice?
This exemplifies the absurdity of Mr. Bacon's Arminian
objection.
Furthermore, doesn't Mr. Bacon consider the Westminster Confession
of Faith to be a fallible, subordinate, secondary
rule of faith which is agreeable to God's
word?
Are not the ministers and elders of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church bound to uphold it insofar
as it agrees with the word of God?
Would they allow someone who obstinately and willfully
teaches against it to come to the Lord's
table?
Why, then, does he object to the covenants
being used as a subordinate standard in the
same way?
On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon writes, through
e-mail, to Pastor Price regarding the necessity
of covenants.
Quote, Necessity implies some rule other than Scripture
which binds the conscience.
If you wish to take the solemn legion
covenant, which I assume you have done, no
bother to me.
However, the term necessity implies precisely the position
that you all have now taken, which I
believe to be directly contrary to the doctrine
of sola scriptura.
Close quote.
No, Mr. Bacon, necessity doesn't imply some other
rule than Scripture which binds the conscience.
Fallible human constitutions, such as confessions, covenants, and
the faithful acts of church courts, all bind
the conscience, if and when they agree with
the word of God.
A good and necessary deduction from Scripture binds
just as much as Scripture itself.
The whole counsel of God concerning all things
necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith,
and life is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may
be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at
any time is to be added, whether by
new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of
men.
That's the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1,
Section 6.
The necessity of covenant keeping is based upon
a good and necessary deduction taken from the
third commandment.
We must necessarily own and renew the covenants
because we are commanded to keep the vows
made on our behalf by our faithful covenanted
forefathers.
They are turned back to the iniquities of
their forefathers, which refuse to hear my words,
and they went after other gods to serve
them.
The house of Israel and the house of
Judah have broken my covenant which I made
with their fathers, Jeremiah 11.10. When thou
vowest a vow unto God, defer not to
pay it, for he hath no pleasure in
fools.
Pay that which thou hast vowed.
Better is it that thou shouldest not vow,
than that thou shouldest vow and not pay,
Ecclesiastes 5, verses 4 and 5.
Necessity in the case of covenant keeping originates
from Scripture alone, and for this reason we
say that it is necessary to renew and
keep the covenants.
These covenants were lawfully sworn, and we are
therefore now obligated to pay what we owe.
Is Mr. Bacon saying that good and necessary
consequences deduced inerrantly but fallibly from Scripture do
not necessarily bind?
What kind of Protestant doctrine is this?
Does Mr. Bacon truly believe that good and
necessary deductions which bind are contrary to sola
scriptura?
Even the doctrine of sola scriptura is an
historical deduction.
Does that bind?
Of course it does, and I am amazed
that Mr. Bacon would attempt to argue in
such a childish fashion.
If a man vow a vow unto the
Lord, or swear an oath to bind his
soul with a bond, he shall not break
his word, he shall do according to all
that proceedeth out of his mouth, Numbers 30,
verse 2.
Samuel Rutherford refutes Mr. Bacon's Arminian notions as
follows.
1.
Only the word of God is the principal
and formal ground of our faith, Ephesians 2,
verses 20-22, 2 Timothy 3.16, Luke
24, verse 25.
2.
A confession of faith containing all fundamental points
is so far forth the word of God
as it agrees with the word of God,
and obligeth as a rule secondary which we
believe with subjection to God speaking in his
own word, and to this platform we may
lawfully swear.
Why then does Mr. Bacon object that we
make the covenants at least a rule of
faith and practice?
The reason Mr. Bacon is arguing like an
Arminian is that he does not properly distinguish
between the alone infallible rule of faith and
secondary rules of faith and practice.
He does not seem to recognize that fallible
standards bind our conscience as secondary rules of
faith when they are agreeable to God's word.
It is not the subordinate standard that ultimately
binds the conscience, but rather the supreme standard
of Holy Scripture speaking in the subordinate standard
that binds the conscience.
Pastor David Steele comments, In short, while on
the ground and in the language of our
reforming ancestors, we hold that our covenants are
a norma recta, a right rule, with which
other symbols of our profession should harmonize.
We also hold that the Scriptures are norma
recti, the rule of right, to regulate all.
Pastor Steele's faithful explanation places him in good
company.
Compare his explanation of our subordinate covenants with
that of the noted Scottish Commissioner to the
Westminster Assembly, George Gillespie.
It is in vain for them to palliate
or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from
the covenant to the Scripture, for subordinate non
-pugnant.
The covenant is norma recta, a right rule,
though the Scripture alone be norma recti, the
rule of right.
If they hold the covenant to be unlawful
or to have anything in it contrary to
the word of God, let them speak out.
But to profess the breach of the covenant
to be a grievous and great fault, and
worthy of a severe censure, and yet to
decline the charge and proofs thereof, is a
most horrible scandal.
Yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at this,
and give ear, O earth, how small regard
is had to the oath of God by
men professing the name of God.
Furthermore, Gillespie notes that those who argue like
Mr. Bacon place themselves in very bad company.
This is a tenet looked upon by the
Reformed Churches as proper to those that are
inspired with the ghost of Arminius, for the
remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of
Dort, did cry down the obligation of all
national covenants and oaths, etc., in matters of
religion, under the color of taking the Scripture
only for a rule.
Well we see the charge declined as nothing.
There is no reasonable explanation for Mr. Bacon's
objection other than the fact that he has
not adequately understood these fundamental truths.
I am sure the Arminian churches worldwide would
approvingly endorse his objection, and in this regard
he has unwittingly become their spokesman.
I encourage the reader to obtain a copy
of Samuel Rutherford's Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty
of Conscience, and carefully examine whether or not
Mr. Bacon has entirely imitated the Arminians in
this regard.
Let the reader observe how little Mr. Bacon
truly understands about the necessity of covenanting, and
how ready he is to rail at those
who, by the grace of God, have been
given this knowledge.
Mr. Bacon's reasoning, if applied consistently, would result
in railing against both Rutherford and Nehemiah as
well.
The PRCE does not equate the covenants with
Scripture any more than Nehemiah or Rutherford.
The covenants bind because they were lawfully sworn
and agreeable to God's word.
Accordingly, these covenants are fallible, subordinate, secondary rules
of faith, and inasmuch as they are agreeable
to God's word, they cannot be broken without
sin.
Again, I repeat that our first term of
communion requires, quote, an acknowledgment of the Old
and New Testament to be the word of
God and the alone infallible rule of faith
and practice, close quote.
Does Mr. Bacon ever once acknowledge this in
his defense departed?
Does he ever acknowledge that we state that
the covenants are agreeable to God's word?
What shall we say about a man who
appears to be given over to the sin
of so grossly misrepresenting the beliefs of others?
How can Mr. Bacon honestly expect others to
believe him in the pulpit when he is
behaving this way?
We explicitly state that the word of God
is our alone infallible rule of faith and
practice, and yet Mr. Bacon expects to convince
others that we have equated the covenants with
the word of God.
Dear reader, what does alone infallible rule of
practice mean to you?
Mr. Bacon's objection is so absurd that I
can hardly believe it has become necessary to
answer it.
What more could we say to convince Mr.
Bacon that the word of God is our
alone infallible rule of faith and practice except
to repeat our first term of communion?
It is both sad and sinful that he
cannot personally accept our plain words and expression
of faith, but for him to aggravate his
sin by brazenly deceiving others about what we
believe is a high form of mischief, he
should be ashamed of himself.
His attitude should be one of profound embarrassment
for so completely misstating our beliefs, and we
await a humble apology and true repentance for
his scandalously perpetrating this public spectacle.
It is one thing to disagree and debate
over different theological positions, but we cannot fathom
how Mr. Bacon could come to this conclusion
based upon anything we have written.
Again, I remind the reader that if Mr.
Bacon claims to have meant to say that
the BRCE believes it is necessary to take
the covenants only in regard to the well
-being of the Church, his crime is further
aggravated.
For if he understood what we really meant,
then why did he fail to qualify his
public charges and thereby lead young and inexperienced
Christians to the wrong conclusions?
Mr. Bacon admits his confusion in his defense
departed.
Mr. Bacon admits his confusion in the following
excerpt from his defense departed, when he says,
quote, This demonstrates two things about their dissociation.
First it proves that Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton, regardless of confused and confusing statements to
the contrary, considers the covenants to be a
necessary sine qua non of a Church's constitution,
if that Church is to be considered a
true Church.
I can understand why he thinks our dissociation
was confused, since it's apparent he did not
understand what we were saying.
The point I wish to make here is
that the word confusing used in this context
can only refer to Mr. Bacon's own confusion.
If he didn't understand what we meant, then
why didn't he ask us before going to
such an extreme?
Why would he draw conclusions regardless of confused
and confusing statements?
Shouldn't he have regarded his confusion as a
signal to ask more questions before penning public
charges against us?
Even under the most charitable construction, his actions
are sinful and in need of repentance.
A DESCRIPTION OF THE COVENANTS, THEIR BINDING NATURE,
PURPOSE, AND RELEVANCE TO THE MODERN DAY CHURCH.
Having dealt with Mr. Bacon's first two accusations,
I will now proceed to discuss Mr. Bacon's
erring comments regarding the binding nature of the
Solemn League and Covenant.
To do this, I intend to follow the
following format.
First, I will establish that both the National
Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant were
originally intended to be sworn as an everlasting
covenant.
Second, I will establish the purpose for which
the covenants were sworn, that is, to glorify
God and to preserve and maintain the true
Church, as to well-being.
Third, I will demonstrate who the original parties
were in the National Covenant and the Solemn
League and Covenant.
Fourth, I will prove that Canada and the
United States were among the parties bound by
the National Covenant and the Solemn League and
Covenant.
Fifth, I will pinpoint exactly where Mr. Bacon
has erred as I discuss the intrinsic obligation
of the covenants.
Sixth, we will answer the question, Do the
circumstantial details of the Solemn League and Covenant
bind us?
Seventh, I will discuss the negative application of
the covenants and briefly examine the concepts of
withdrawal, censure, and separation.
A.
The original intent of the Covenanters was to
swear an everlasting covenant never to be forgotten.
When interpreting any historical document, we must strive
to ascertain the original intent of the authors
of that document.
In many cases this is difficult and time
-consuming, though in this case it is easy
and obvious.
Those who originally swore the covenants left us
no doubt as to what their intentions were.
1.
The National Covenant was intended and sworn as
an everlasting covenant.
On September 22, 1638, six months after the
National Covenant was renewed in Scotland, we read
the following protest against the proclamation of King
Charles I, which called for the Covenanters to
forget their subscription of 1638 and to renew
the National Covenant as it was subscribed in
1580.
2.
That by this new subscription, which Charles I
was proposing, our late covenant of 1638 and
confession may be quite absorbed and buried in
oblivion, that where it was intended and sworn
to be an everlasting covenant never to be
forgotten, it shall nevermore be remembered, the one
shall be cried up and the other drowned
in the noise thereof.
2.
The Solemn League and Covenant was intended and
sworn as an everlasting covenant.
John Brown of Haddington, in his book entitled
The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration,
points out that the Westminster Assembly considered the
Solemn League and Covenant an everlasting covenant.
That the body of the English nation also
swore the Solemn League and Covenant is manifest.
The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament affirm, The
Honourable House of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines,
the renowned City of London, and multitudes of
other persons of all ranks and quality in
this nation, and the whole body of Scotland,
have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath
so graciously seconded from heaven.
God will doubtless stand by all those who,
with singleness of heart, shall now enter into
an everlasting covenant with the Lord.
And that's from The Absurdity and Perfidy of
All Authoritative Toleration, page 161.
Finally, we read the words of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1643, where
they address their beloved brethren, ministers in the
Church of England, in preparation for the swearing
of the covenant.
Go on in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ against all opposition, without fear of
whatsoever dangers, to purge the house of the
Lord, to repair the breaches thereof, to set
up all his ordinances in their full beauty
and perfection, to the uttermost of your power,
according to the pattern of the word of
God and zeal of the best reformed Kirks.
And let these two kingdoms be knit together
as one man in maintaining and promoting the
truth of the gospel.
Let us enter in a perpetual covenant for
ourselves and our posterity, to endeavour that all
things may be done in the house of
God according to his own will, and let
the Lord do with us as seems good
in his eyes.
That's from the Acts of General Assembly, page
205.
This establishes beyond any shadow of doubt that
those who originally swore the covenant swore them
with the intent of entering into an everlasting
covenant with God.
It is also easily observable that these covenanters
were members of a truly constituted Christian church
as to well-being, before taking these covenants.
Why then would Mr. Bacon say, It proves
that Puritan Reformed Church considers the covenants to
be a necessary sine qua non of a
church's constitution if that church is to be
considered a true church, if it is so
patently obvious that the covenanters constituted a true
church before swearing the covenants.
I can only think that he is trying
to give others the impression that the PRCE
is doing or requiring something different than the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, when
in reality our position towards the covenants is
precisely the same as theirs.
In what sense are these covenants deemed everlasting
and perpetual?
On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon writes to
Pastor PRCE, Are you seriously suggesting that not
aligning ourselves with a seventeenth-century document is
sinful?
That seems to be what I have read
thus far in both your overture and your
posts.
Archibald Mason explains, That the obligation of religious
vows and oaths extends to posterity is evident
also from the names which the Scriptures bestow
upon the Church's covenants with God.
They are called an everlasting covenant.
The earth is also defiled under the inhabitants
thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed
the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant, and a
perpetual covenant.
They shall ask the way to Zion with
their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us
join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual
covenant that shall not be forgotten.
These covenants are called an everlasting covenant and
a perpetual covenant because their obligation is durable
and permanent and extends to future generations.
If the obligation of these covenants perished at
the decease of the actual covenanters, they would
be temporary, fleeting, and transient in their nature
indeed, and could have no title to these
honorable appellations bestowed upon them by the Spirit
of God.
That's from Archibald Mason's Observations on the Public
Covenants between God and the Church, page 45.
Like our covenanted ancestors, we believe that these
covenants were originally sworn as everlasting covenants and
that their binding obligation extends throughout the duration
of the moral person.
A DEFINITION OF THE TERM MORAL PERSON In
his defense departed, Mr. Bacon inadequately describes a
moral person as follows.
The term moral person may present just a
bit of confusion to those not familiar with
seventeenth century ecclesiology.
By moral person, the Steelite document refers to
all those who are part of a covenantal
unit.
Thus, a family, a church, and a nation
are all moral persons because God treats with
them as they are covenanted units.
I suppose a school or a business could
be a moral person if the right conditions
were met, though I have not seen any
Steelite literature extending the term in that way.
While Mr. Bacon gives a vague and general
idea of this important concept, his description is
so woefully inadequate that I believe it would
be profitable to acquaint the reader with a
more competent explanation.
In so doing, we can better understand in
what sense these covenants are called everlasting.
PASTOR DAVID SCOTT EXPLAINS 1.
Ecclesiastical and national societies are moral persons.
By a moral person I mean that each
of these kinds of societies has an understanding
and a will of its own by which
it perceives, deliberates, determines, and acts.
An individual person is one that has the
power of understanding and willing.
The name moral person is therefore applied to
a society having an understanding and a will
common to the whole body, by which, though
made up of a vast number of individuals,
it possesses the power of knowing, deliberating, determining,
and acting.
A moral person may enter into contracts and
covenant obligations, and these are as valid when
entered into as the covenant obligations of individual
persons.
Being moral persons, churches and nations are capable
of entering into covenant with God, and that
it is their duty to do so I
have demonstrated in the preceding section.
Such obligations, when constituted agreeably to the will
of God, are necessarily perpetual.
For it is not the individuals merely of
which the society consists, but the society itself
as a moral person that covenants.
In the case of personal covenanting, no one
will question that the covenant obligation extends throughout
the whole life of the individual.
The same principle prevails in relation to social
covenanting.
The obligation extends throughout the duration of the
moral person.
2.
The church is a permanently existing body.
It has undergone, indeed, several changes in its
external administration, but it is the same now
that it was when first constituted.
The church in the wilderness of Sinai is
identical with the church in the days of
Adam and Eve, and continues still the same
moral person in the nineteenth century.
The removal by death of individual members does
not destroy the identity of a moral person,
which remains unaffected by the removal of a
thousand generations.
Covenant obligation entered into by the church in
any given period continues of perpetual obligation throughout
all succeeding generations, and that, too, on the
recognized principle that the church continues the same
moral person.
3.
National society does not possess an undying constitution
like that of the church.
It may be dissolved, and history presents a
vast number of instances of the entire dissolution
of nations.
But the obligation created by national covenanting extends
throughout the duration of the society because it
is a moral person, and if the perpetuity
of the obligation may be limited, it is
limited only by the moral person ceasing to
exist.
And that's from David Scott's Distinctive Principles of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church, pages 61 to 63.
Add to this the teaching of Thomas Houston,
where he further explains the nature of federal
obligations.
The principle of continued or transmissible federal obligation
is not liable to the objections that have
been urged against it, and is no novelty.
We do not make our ancestors a sort
of federal head as Adam was to the
human family when we allege that our posterity
are bound by their engagements.
This is altogether a misrepresentation of the argument
on the subject.
The descending obligation of the public covenants rests
upon the essential character of organized society.
It is the same party in different stages
of its existence that is bound to moral
obedience, and the obligation rests in all its
plenitude upon the community as the same moral
agent until the whole matter of the engagement
be fulfilled.
That's Thomas Houston's A Memorial of Covenanting, page
35.
From the source above, we learn that covenants
were everlasting in the sense that they bind
those societies who take them for the duration
of their existence, or until the intended ends
of the covenants are accomplished and maintained.
In other words, the covenant obligation is as
perpetual as the society that takes them.
To this day, the societies who took the
National Covenant and the solemn Ligon Covenant continue
to exist as moral persons, and consequently continue
to be bound by all the terms and
obligations of these promises.
That these covenants were sworn on our behalf
in the seventeenth century is as irrelevant as
if they had been sworn in the twentieth
century.
Mr. Bacon shows his ignorance of the relevant
issues when he asks, Are you seriously suggesting
that not aligning ourselves with a seventeenth-century
document is sinful?
He needs to explain exactly why he is
no longer a part of the moral person
of the Church of Jesus Christ descending from
the Covenanted Church of Scotland, or the posterity
of the nation of Britain, before he can
convince us that these covenants no longer bind
us.
That I am sure he could never do.
THE DEEP PIT OF COVENANT BREAKING Those who
follow Mr. Bacon's teaching walk together hand in
hand within the deep pit of covenant breaking.
From this pit they look up at those
who plead with them to climb out, and
call us the separatists.
Come down into this pit with us, they
cry.
You schismatics, don't you see that it is
a sin to stay separate from us?
Can't you see that for hundreds of years
most of the nations have joined us down
here?
How can we be wrong when all the
churches and ministers are ignoring the promises made
to our Master?
Every scar would have to be wrong for
you to be right.
Join with us, or we will try to
set everyone down here against you.
From atop the pit we say, Brethren, you
have fallen into a deep pit, and we
desire to be with you, except we have
seen the light at the top, and our
King has shown us the way out.
We are not boasting that we are better
than you.
We are only pleading with you to come
and see what God has graciously given.
Our forefathers marked the way for us before
we were born, and God's word has given
us the light to see their landmarks.
Those with you have moved these landmarks in
order to keep you in the pit, but
we can show you where they are and
help you out.
We cannot return to you, but you must
return to us, Jeremiah 15, 19.
We cannot join you in the deep pit
of covenant breaking, but rather you must come
and join us so that we might have
unity in the light of the sun.
This is the place where our forefathers dwelt.
Come join us and keep the promises made
to our Master.
Tell the others and bring the whole nation
with you so that we can dwell together
in peace.
The table is set, and we go now
to his table of communion.
Please climb out now and eat and drink
with your brothers.
They reply, Are you seriously telling us that
we must keep our father's old promises?
Our fathers are long dead, and we have
sailed to another land where few have even
heard of these promises.
Surely those actual promises don't apply to us
anymore.
We admit that these promises are good examples
and strong reminders of what our Master requires,
but you want us to keep the traditions
of men.
You want us to climb out using the
same path as our forefathers.
Just because they did it that way doesn't
mean we have to.
We are wiser than you and have not
invented new rules to keep people from our
table.
Down here we are more tolerant, and therefore
we enjoy great unity.
You are nearly alone, and we are all
against you.
Return to us, enjoy our meal, and we
will forgive you for climbing out of the
pit.
Finally we respond, We must go now for
our Master calls.
We will continue to call out to you
as we go, but today you must hear
our voice, for if you reject it now,
it will grow faint as we walk away.
Soon you will become so angry with us
that you will not even hear the words
we say.
Your railing will drown out the sound of
our voice in your ears, and what will
become of you then?
We have invented no new rule, but rather
we are simply calling you to keep the
Master's old rule.
It is He who told our fathers to
make their promises.
It is He who tells us that they
are still binding, and it is He who
tells us to keep our promises.
We will continually knock on our Master's door
and plead with Him to show you your
error, but we warn you that His patience
will not last forever.
Soon He will come and reckon your account.
He will ask you why you did not
climb out of the pit.
Why did you not listen to the truth?
Why are you persecuting His children?
In that day you will be ashamed before
the piercing eyes of the judge.
We only desire our Master's approval and your
fellowship in the light.
Come, brethren, stop fighting with us and follow
the footsteps of the flock.
Climb out of the deep pit of covenant
breaking.
The General Assembly of Scotland did not mince
words with those who tried to dispense with
their everlasting covenant obligations.
They call it anti-Christian and never practiced
by any but that man of sin.
August 6, 1649 Although there were none in
the one kingdom who did adhere to the
covenant, yet thereby were not the other kingdom,
nor any person in either of them, absolved
from the bond thereof, since in it we
have not only sworn by the Lord, but
also covenanted with Him.
It is not the failing of one or
more that can absolve the other from their
duty or tie to Him.
Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves
lawful, and the grounds of our tie thereunto
moral, though the other do forget their duty,
yet doth not their defection free us from
that obligation which lies upon us by the
covenants in our places and stations.
And the covenant being intended and entered into
by these kingdoms as one of the best
means of steadfastness for guarding against declining times,
it were strange to say that the backsliding
of any should absolve others from the tie
thereof, especially seeing our engagement therein as not
only national, but also personal, every one with
uplifted hands swearing by himself as it is
evident by the tenor of the covenant.
From these and other important reasons it may
appear that all these kingdoms, joining together to
abolish that oath by law, yet could they
not dispense therewith, much less can any one
of them, or any part in either of
them, do the same.
The dispensing with oaths hath hitherto been abhorred
as anti-Christian, and never practised and avowed
by any but that man of sin.
Therefore those who take the same upon them,
as they join with him in his sin,
so must they expect to partake of his
plagues.
Did not the General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland just equate Mr. Bacon's ideas about
covenanting with the man of sin?
Truly the darkness of the pit of covenant
-breaking makes for strange bedfellows.
Sadly, those like Mr. Bacon, who so promiscuously
dispense with binding oaths, find themselves in the
company of those who suffer the plagues that
justly attach to their sin.
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 also will
do this unto you.
I will even appoint over you terror, consumption,
and the burning ague, that shall consume the
eyes, and cause sorrow of heart.
And ye shall sow your seed in vain,
for your enemies shall eat it.
And I will set my face against you,
and ye shall be slain before your enemies.
They that hate you shall reign over you,
and ye shall flee when none pursue with
you.
And if ye will not yet for all
this hearken unto me, then I will punish
you seven more times for your sins.
And I will break the pride of your
power, and I will make your heaven as
iron, and your earth as brass.
And your strength shall be spent in vain,
for your land shall not yield her increase,
neither shall the trees of the land yield
their fruits.
And if ye walk contrary unto me, and
will not hearken unto me, I will bring
seven times more plagues upon you, according to
your sins.
I will also send wild beasts among you,
which shall rob you of your children, and
destroy your cattle, and make you few in
number.
And your highways shall be desolate.
And if ye will not be reformed by
these things, but will walk contrary unto me,
then will I also walk contrary unto you,
and will punish you yet seven times for
your sins.
And I will bring a sword upon you,
that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant.
And when ye are gathered together within your
cities, I will send the pestilence among you,
and ye shall be delivered unto the hand
of the enemy.
Leviticus 26 verses 15-25.
Now I will endeavor to prove that the
covenants are intended for the well-being of
the church, and not for the being of
the church.
This I will do by demonstrating that the
covenanters clearly purpose to swear the covenants for
the preservation and maintenance of the true church,
and not for the existence of it.
This will demonstrate that Mr. Bacon totally misrepresents
our meaning when we say it is necessary
to take the covenant of the three kingdoms.
We mean that it is necessary for the
faithfulness, preservation, and maintenance of the church, but
not necessary for its existence.
b.
The national covenant and the solemn legal covenant
are intended to maintain and preserve the truly
constituted church, well-being, and are not intended
to create a truly constituted church, being.
b.
The purpose of swearing the national covenant.
1.
In the preface to the national covenant we
read of the direct purpose of the covenanters
when they say, 2.
Subscribed again by all sorts of persons in
the year 1590 by a new ordinance of
council at the desire of the General Assembly,
with a general bond for the maintaining of
the true Christian religion and the King's person,
and together with a resolution and promise for
the causes after expressed to maintain the true
religion.
2.
Later in the same document there is again
a direct statement of purpose, 3.
In obedience to the command of God, conformed
to the practice of the godly in former
times, sounds like attainments, and according to the
laudable example of our worthy and religious progenitors,
sounds like more attainments, and of many yet
living amongst us, which was warranted also by
act of council, commanding a general ban to
be made and to subscribe by His Majesty's
subjects of all ranks, for two causes.
One was for defending the true religion, as
it was then reformed, and as expressed in
the Confession of Faith above written, and a
former large confession established by sundry acts of
lawful General Assemblies and of Parliaments, unto which
it hath relation set down in public catechisms,
and which hath then for many years, with
a blessing from heaven, preached and professed in
this kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth,
grounded only upon His written word.
THE PURPOSE OF SWEARING THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND
COVENANT 1.
The stated purpose of the General Assembly of
Scotland for swearing the Solemn League and Covenant,
that is, the most powerful mean for settling
and preserving the true religion.
The General Assembly's approbation of the Solemn League
and Covenant, August 17, 1643, Session Fourteen, states,
2.
The Assembly, all with one voice, approve and
embrace the same, that is, the Solemn League
and Covenant, as the most powerful mean, by
the blessing of God, for settling and preserving
the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in
His Majesty's dominions, and propagating the same to
other nations, and for establishing His Majesty's throne
to all ages and generations.
2.
The first article of the Solemn League and
Covenant states its primary purpose, that is, the
preservation of the true religion in the Church
of Scotland, that we shall sincerely, really, and
constantly, through the grace of God, endeavour in
our several places and callings the preservation of
the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland,
in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our
common enemies.
These quotations establish the Covenanters' original intent and
purpose in swearing the covenants.
To use their own words, let us enter
into a perpetual covenant for ourselves and our
posterity, with singleness of heart, intended and sworn
to be an everlasting covenant, never to be
forgotten, for the purpose of settling and preserving
the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in
His Majesty's dominions, and propagating the same to
other nations, and for establishing His Majesty's throne
to all ages and generations.
The PRCE intends and purposes nothing different in
the taking of the covenants than the original
swearers did.
Why should we alter such a godly purpose
when we realize that we are still bound
to these original promises?
Being bound to these promises is a joy
and a help to all those who recognize
them.
These covenants do exactly what they were intended
to do by promoting unity in doctrine and
uniformity in practice.
Truly God has been merciful to open our
eyes to our past covenant-breaking ways, from
which, by His incomparable grace, we have repented.
Having stated and demonstrated that we do not
plead the necessity of taking the covenants for
the existence of the Church, but rather for
the preservation and maintenance of the Church, we
can now move on to our next consideration,
that of an examination of some relevant correspondence
between Pastor Price and Mr. Bacon.
Mr. Bacon says it is not necessary to
take the covenant of the three kingdoms.
In an e-mail discussion between Pastor Price
and Mr. Bacon on November 20, 1996, Pastor
Price wrote, Dick, since you acknowledge you have
read the material we have sent regarding covenanting
and the perpetual obligation of covenants, do you
agree with us or not?
What did you understand by the statement at
the first meeting in Atlanta, Georgia?
It is not necessary to take the covenant
of the three kingdoms.
Mr. Bacon replied, I agree with a hundred
percent of what you are saying in the
doctrinal and theoretical level.
I also agree ninety-nine and forty-four
one-hundredths of a percent of what you
are saying in the practical level.
Also, not only I, but you and Greg
Barrow agreed to the statement that it is
not necessary to take the covenant of the
three kingdoms.
I still do not think it is, nor
do I think the material you sent has
demonstrated such a necessity.
I do not understand how Mr. Bacon can
honestly say he agrees with us a hundred
percent on a doctrinal and theoretical level and
ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundredths of
a percent on a practical level.
Isn't this the same man who says that
we have erred on a principle essential to
the definition of Protestantism?
Did he not call us steelite popes and
these newest children of the Pharisees in Defense
Departed?
How can such agreement come from one side
of his mouth while with the other side
he compares our doctrine to Romanists?
It would seem to me that Mr. Bacon
is either very poor at math or he
has severely misstated his degree of agreement with
us.
Nevertheless, the issue on which I wish to
focus at this point is that Mr. Bacon
clearly stands by the statement made by the
Reformation Presbyterian Church in its pretended court, it
is not necessary to take the covenant of
the three kingdoms.
This statement of the RPC, like many of
their statements, is unqualified and imprecise, leaving those
who are considering its import in a position
of guessing exactly what was meant.
When Pastor Price asked for clarification, Mr. Bacon
replied evasively, I would be happy to answer
any questions you have about the implications of
taking or not taking specific historical covenants, including
the solemn legion covenant, but I'd probably meant
the same thing you and Greg did when
you agreed to the very same phrase.
Further, that question came up at our first
meeting in October of 1994 and was discussed
to a degree that apparently satisfied you at
the time.
It is true that this question did come
up at our first meeting in Atlanta, Georgia,
and it was passed with little or no
discussion.
I know that at the time I could
not figure out why such a motion was
being made at an organizational meeting.
It is also true that we passed the
motion in ignorance and have since publicly repented
of doing so.
The problem is that neither Mr. Bacon nor
the RPC have repented of doing so, and
until they do, we believe them to be
guilty both of obstinate covenant breaking and willful
perjury.
This is the main reason for our dissociation
from them.
Compare these two contrary statements.
Mr. Bacon and the Reformation Presbyterian Church say
it is not necessary to take the covenant
of the three kingdoms.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
1638-1649 and the PRCE say let us
enter into a perpetual covenant for ourselves and
our posterity with singleness of heart intended and
sworn to be an everlasting covenant never to
be forgotten for the purpose of settling and
preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace
in His Majesty's dominions and propagating the same
to other nations and for establishing His Majesty's
throne to all ages and generations.
Dear reader, is it not readily apparent that
these two sentiments are at opposite ends of
the spectrum?
How can these covenanters designate their covenants as
everlasting and perpetual if their obligations applied only
to the generation of people who actually swore
them?
To describe something as everlasting and perpetual, when
in reality you mean temporary, is a deception
of the highest order and we would need
some very compelling evidence set before us to
prove that our faithful forefathers were guilty of
such dishonesty.
Why would they even mention their posterity if
the covenants only applied to those who, in
the seventeenth century, actually raised their right hand
to formally swear these oaths?
When Mr. Bacon states that it is not
necessary to take the covenant of the three
kingdoms, does he mean that these covenants have
become old and inapplicable to our times?
Yes, and while he does give lip service
to the covenant's moral obligations, I will show
how his neglect of its formal obligation is
an error too notable to excuse.
Either Mr. Bacon and the pretended presbytery of
the Reformation Presbyterian Church are right and the
covenant of the three kingdoms does not intrinsically
apply to the Church in Canada and the
United States, or the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, 1638-1649, and the PRCE
are right in the intrinsic obligation of the
covenant of the three kingdoms does obligate and
bind us to an everlasting agreement.
If I can prove, as I shall do
presently, that these covenants were not simply made
between men and nations, but rather between men
and God, then we will understand why these
covenants were intended and denominated everlasting and perpetual.
Once we understand that God is the other
party in these covenants, we will see why
neither time nor geography will release us from
the oaths made on our behalf by our
covenanted forefathers.
Because our promise is to God and these
covenants have been sworn in His name, we
can be released from their obligation only upon
the authority of God Himself.
Mr. Bacon needs to prove that God has
released us from this formal obligation, and he
needs to prove exactly how and when that
happened, if he hopes to maintain his argument.
To date, all he has done is arrogantly
declared that it is not necessary to take
these covenants, and in so doing he has
spoken directly contrary to the original intention of
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
To prove the position that these everlasting covenants
still morally obligate us, and that to uphold
them is necessary to the well-being of
the Church, we must answer this question.
Who are the parties involved in the covenant?
c.
The covenanting parties in the national covenant are
God, the Church of Scotland, and the nation
of Scotland, inclusive of all their posterity.
To determine who the covenanting parties are, we
must go directly to the covenants themselves.
First, I cite the act ordaining, by ecclesiastical
authority, the subscription of the confession of faith
in covenant, that is, in the national covenant,
with the assembly's declaration, to show that the
covenanting parties are God himself and the Church
and nation of Scotland.
The General Assembly, considering the great happiness which
may flow from a full and perfect union
of this kirk and kingdom by joining of
all in one and the same covenant with
God, with the King's majesty and amongst ourselves,
having by our great oath declared the uprightness
and loyalty of our intentions in all our
proceedings, and having withal supplicated His Majesty's High
Commissioner and the Lords of His Majesty's Honorable
Privy Council, to enjoin, by act of counsel,
all the legis in time coming to subscribe
the said confession of faith in covenant, which,
as a testimony of our fidelity to God
and loyalty to our King, we have subscribed,
the national covenant.
And again, from the national covenant, we all
and every one of us underwritten protest that
after long and due examination of our own
consciences in matters of true and false religion
we are now thoroughly resolved in the truth
by the word and spirit of God, and
therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with
our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly
affirm before God and the whole world that
this only is the true Christian faith and
religion, pleasing God and bringing salvation to man.
And finally, neither do we fear the foul
aspersions of rebellion, combination, or what else our
adversaries from their craft and malice would put
upon us, seeing that what we do is
so well warranted and ariseth from an unfeigned
desire to maintain the true worship of God,
the majesty of the King, and the peace
of the kingdom, for the common happiness of
ourselves and our posterity.
The covenanting parties in the Solemn League and
Covenant are God and the Churches of Scotland,
England, and Ireland, and the nations of Scotland,
England, and Ireland, as well as all their
posterity in all the King's dominions.
The Solemn League and Covenant, for reformation and
defense of religion, the honor and happiness of
the King, and the peace and safety of
the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland,
agreed upon by commissioners from the Parliament and
Assembly of Divines in England, with commissioners of
the Convention of Estates and General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland, approved by the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and by
both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly of
Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by
them in the year 1643, and thereafter by
the said authority taken and subscribed by all
ranks in Scotland and England in the same
year, and ratified by act of the Parliament
of Scotland in the year 1644, and again
renewed in Scotland with an acknowledgment of sins
and engagement to duties by all ranks in
the year 1648, and by Parliament in 1649,
and taken and subscribed by King Charles II
at Spey, June 23, 1650, and at Schoon,
January 1, 1651.
And again, for the preservation of ourselves and
our religion from utter ruin and destruction, according
to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in
former times, and the example of God's people
in other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and
determined to enter into a mutual and solemn
league and covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and
each one of us for himself, with our
hands lifted up to the Most High God,
do swear, and that again from the solemn
league and covenant, finally, that we shall sincerely,
really, and constantly, through the grace of God,
endeavor in our several places and callings, the
preservation of the reformed religion in the Church
of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
against our common enemies, the reformation of religion
in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in
doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the
word of God and the example of the
best reformed churches, and shall endeavor to bring
the churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
confession of faith, form of church government, directory
for worship and catechizing, that we and our
posterity after us may as brethren live in
faith and love, and the Lord may delight
to dwell in the midst of us.
John Cunningham explains the nature of these covenants
and their relation to the covenant of redemption
and the covenant of grace as follows, quote,
Covenanting is the exercise of either entering, in
an individual or a social capacity, solemnly and
formally into the covenant of grace, or of
renewing it.
From the definition it follows that by covenanting
men do make a covenant with God.
The renovation of a covenant is not less
a covenant than was the original bond.
In covenanting is given that acquiescence in the
conditions of the covenant of grace, which is
an essential of a covenant, and the free
offer to enter it being continued acceptance in
the service is enjoyed.
As certainly, therefore, as that called the covenant
of grace is in reality a covenant, is
every lawful engagement entered into by solemnly covenanting
with God possessed of the character of a
covenant.
But such a covenant is not distinct from
the covenant of redemption, nor from the covenant
of grace.
It is dependent on that covenant as made
with the mediator, and consistent with it as
established with men.
In all three cases, the God of grace
is one of the contracting parties.
That's from Cunningham's The Ordinance of Covenanting, pages
8 and 9.
This is the end of tape 1 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 Stillwaters 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.
These tapes are not copyrighted and we therefore
encourage you to copy and distribute them to
any and all you believe would be benefited.