The Forgotten Calvin

In the midst of the Calvin commemorations one aspect of his teaching will be conveniently forgotten because it doesn't sit well with most of those who are claiming to be his successors. His teaching on purity of worship is very clear, reflecting the historic uniform presbyterian and reformed position and practice. He maintained the regulative principle of worship, that nothing could be brought into the worship of God without scriptural warrant.

Calvin opposed instrumental music in public worship as belonging to the ceremonial law. "To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery," says Calvin, "unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures, but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving." On Ps. lxxi. 22. He says again: "With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments until the coming of Christ. But now, when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time."On Ps. lxxxi. 3. He further observes: "We are to remember that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward services, which were only necessary to help forward a people as yet weak and rude in knowledge in the spiritual worship of God. A difference is to be observed in this respect between his people under the Old and under the New Testament; for now that Christ has appeared, and the church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the gospel should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation. From this it appears that the Papists, as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, in employing instrumental music cannot be said so much to imitate the practice of God's ancient people as to ape it in a senseless and absurd manner, exhibiting a silly delight in that worship of the Old Testament which was figurative and terminated with the gospel." On Ps. xcii. 1.

He also wrote:

Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable thatn the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicitly which God recommends to us by the apostle [Heb. 13:15] is far more pleasing to Him.

Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.

Again, Calvin notes that: "We know that our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, and by His advent has abolished these legal shadows. Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, was only tolerated on account of the times and the people, because they were as boys, as the sacred Scripture speaketh, whose condition required these puerile rudiments. But in gospel times we must not have recourse to these unless we wish to destroy the evangelical perfection and to obscure the meridian light which we enjoy in Christ our Lord." (Calvin's Commentary on the Thirty-third Psalm, and on 1 Sam. 18:1-9).

The best article on this subject appears to be one written by J G Vos. In terms of the content of praise, Calvin believed that the Psalms of Scripture were the only songs worthy of God. In the Preface to the Genevan Psalter he writes:

What is there now to do? It is to have songs not only honest, but also holy, which will be like spurs to incite us to pray to and praise God, and to meditate upon his works in order to love, fear, honor and glorify him. Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him. And moreover, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts in our mouths these, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory. Wherefore Chrysostom exhorts, as well as the men, the women and the little children to accustom themselves to singing them, in order that this may be a sort of meditation to associate themselves with the company of the angels.

Richard Arnold therefore notes, “However Calvin’s enthusiasm for singing was subject to a crucial qualification: he restricted what was to be sung exclusively to the Psalms – these were, he writes in 1543, the songs provided by God and dictated by His Holy Spirit, and it would be presumptuous and sacrilegious for humankind to sing any words or arrangements of his of her own devising.”

Calvin extolled the range of truth found in the Psalms as entirely suited and adequate for New Testament worship. "The Psalms are replete with all the precepts which serve to frame our life to every part of holiness, piety, and righteousness". He wrote that "this book makes known to us this privilege, which is desirable above all others-that not only is there opened up to us familiar access to God, but also that we have permission and freedom granted us to lay open before him our infirmities, which we would be ashamed to confess before men". The Psalms were unique in the whole of Scripture:

There is no other book in which there is to be found more express and magnificent commendations, both of the unparalleled liberality of God towards his Church, and of all his works; there is no other book in which there is recorded so many deliverances, nor one in which the evidences and experiences of the fatherly providence and solicitude which God exercises towards us, are celebrated with such splendour of diction, and yet with the strictest adherence to truth; in short, there is no other book in which we are more perfectly taught the right manner of praising God, or in which we are more powerfully stirred up to the performance of this religious exercise

I have been accustomed to call this book, I think not inappropriately, The Anatomy of all the Parts of the Soul… there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror. Or rather, the Holy Spirit has here drawn … all the griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, perplexities, in short, all the distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be agitated. The other parts of Scripture contain the commandments which God enjoined his servants to announce to us. But here the prophets themselves, seeing they are exhibited to us as speaking to God, and laying open all their inmost thoughts and affections, call, or rather draw, each of us to the examination of himself in particular, in order that none of the many infirmities to which we are subject, and of the many vices with which we abound, may remain concealed. It is certainly a rare and singular advantage, when all lurking places are discovered, and the heart is brought into the light, purged from that most baneful infection, hypocrisy

We do not think that many modern theologians would be able to say what Calvin says of the Psalms:

In short, as calling upon God is one of the principal means of securing our safety, and as a better and more unerring rule for guiding us in this exercise cannot be found elsewhere than in The Psalms, it follows, that in proportion to the proficiency which a man shall have attained in understanding them, will be his knowledge of the most important part of celestial doctrine

The Psalms provide us with an infallible rule:

Besides, there is also here prescribed to us an infallible rule for directing us with respect to the right manner of offering to God the sacrifice of praise, which he declares to be most precious in his sight, and of the sweetest odour.

"… in short, there is no other book in which we are more perfectly taught the right manner of praising God, or in which we are more powerfully stirred up to the performance of this religious exercise".

Calvin also has a clear warning to those who are casting the psalms aside from public worship:

The psalms can stimulate us to raise our hearts to God and arouse us to an ardor in invoking as well as in exalting with praises the glory of His name. Moreover by this, one will recognize of what advantage and consolation the pope and his creatures have deprived the church, for he has distorted the psalms, which should be true spiritual songs, into a murmuring among themselves without any understanding

500 years on from Calvin's birth, how near are most 'Calvinist' churches to his doctrine and practice of worship?

the personal reality of providence: faith penetrating more deeply

"God's will is the highest and first cause of all things, for nothing can happen apart from God's command or permission" (16:8). "What God has determined must necessarily take place" (16.9). 

 

"anyone who has been taught by Christ's lips that all the hairs of his head are numbered [Matthew 10:30] will look farther afield for a cause, and will consider that all events are governed by God's secret plan. And concerning inanimate objects we ought to hold that, although each one has by nature been endowed with its own property, yet it does not exercise its own power except in so far as it is directed by God's ever-present hand. These are, thus, nothing but instruments to which God continually imparts as much effectiveness as he wills, and according to his own purpose bends and turns them to either one action or another". (I.16.2)

 

For someone who wrote three chapters on the doctrine of providence in the Institutes (chapters 16-18 of book one) and a book on the Secret Providence of God, Calvin had a very person application of it. One "must consider that his business is with his Maker and the framer of the universe, submitting humbly in fear and reverence (18.4). "Faith" he wrote "ought to penetrate more deeply, namely, having found Him Creator of all, forthwith to conclude that He is also everlasting Governor and Preserver" (16:1). "There are very many and very clear promises that testify that God's singular Providence watches over the welfare of believers" (17:7). Looking back Calvin saw this in his life, in his youth he was destined for the priesthood and completely bogged down in the superstitition of Romanism. "God," he wrote much later, "at last turned my course in another direction by the secret rein of his providence." On one occasion later in life, he wrote of his endeavours in a letter to Philip Melanchthon, 5 March, 1555:  "You know however that our duties by no means depend on our hopes of success, but that it behooves us to accomplish what God requires of us, even when we are in the greatest despair respecting the results." When we reflect on Calvin's life and influence we should be thankful for his faith in providence so that he did what God required of him irrespective of how difficult it seemed to be that it would succeed. Did he think that that influence would reach China?

 

 

What is experimental preaching?

Experimental preaching is the overflow of the preacher's experience of the Word of God to meet the experience of those to whom he preaches. It is vitally important but especially difficult to define. I tend to rely upon John Owen's acute observations on this as the best definition available.

"Experience of the power of the truth which they preach in and upon their own souls. Without this they will themselves be lifeless and heartless in their own work, and their labour for the most part will be unprofitable towards others…But a man preacheth that sermon only well unto others which preacheth itself in his own soul. And he that doth not feed on and thrive in the digestion of the food which he provides for others will scarce make it savoury unto them; yea, he knows not but the food he hath provided may be poison, unless he have really tasted of it himself. If the word do not dwell with power in us, it will not pass with power from us. And no man lives in a more woeful condition than those who really believe not themselves what they persuade others to believe continually. The want of this experience of the power of gospel truth on their own souls is that which gives us so many lifeless, sapless orations, quaint in words and dead as to power, instead of preaching the gospel in the demonstration of the Spirit." Vol. 16, p. 76.

But it stands to reason that it is better experienced than defined. This sermon is probably the most experimental sermon I have heard.

The sun of holiness

Sanctification is a constant, progressive renewing of the whole man, whereby the new creature doth daily more and more die unto sin and live unto God. Regeneration is the birth, sanctification is the growth of this babe of grace. In regeneration the sun of holiness rises; in sanctification it keepeth its course, and shineth brighter and brighter unto the perfect day (Proverbs 4:18). The former is a specifical change from nature to grace (Ephesians 5:8); the latter is a gradual change from one degree of grace to another (Psalm 84:7), whereby the Christian goeth from strength to strength till he appear before God in Zion.

George Swinnock 

how we take God’s name in vain in reading or hearing His Word

Thomas Boston has these solemn considerations in relation to our reading and hearing (i.e. hearing sermons) of the Word of God.

 

In reading or hearing the word, we take God's name in vain,
[1.] When we do not prepare ourselves for it, appointing a meal in it to our souls by prayer and looking to God; and when we make it not our business to get our hearts emptied of worldly thoughts and affections, and come with an appetite, 1 Pet. 2:1, 2.
[2.] When we do not strive to understand what we read or hear of the word, Acts 8:30; but pass it, as if bare reading or hearing were all.
[3.] When we are not attentive thereto, but let the heart wander in the time after other things, Ezek. 33:30.
[4.] When we are dull, drowsy, sleepy, and weary in it, crying in our hearts, When will the Sabbath be over? like Doeg, detained before the Lord.
[5.] When we do not receive it as the word of the living God, looking on it as God himself speaking to us, 1 Thess. 2:13.
[6.] When we do not subject ourselves humbly to what we hear from the Lord by his word, being affected suitably to every part of the word, approving the commands thereof, believing the promises, and trembling at the threatenings, Heb. 4:2.
[7.] When we do not lay ourselves open to the word, to be taught our duty, to be reproved for our faults, to be searched and known as by the candle of the Lord; but ward off convictions, and rise against the speaker when the word toucheth us.
[8.] When we hear it partially, having more respect to the speaker, to receive it or reject it according to our opinion of him, than to the Lord's word itself, Acts 17:11, &c.
[9.] Lastly, When we do not meditate upon it afterwards, confer about it, and labour to improve it to our soul's good.

Is all of life worship?

There are many attempts to redefine the regulative principle of worship viz. that "the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan...or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture" (WCF). One of these is the idea that "all of life is worship". In other words the Bible only regulates worship in the way that it regulates the rest of life. All of life contains many elements and activities that are not explicitly and strictly regulated by Scripture. therefore whatever is permitted in "all of life," is permitted in the public worship of God on the Lord's Day. This changes the regulative principle to a rather loose principle and to mean simply that worship may introduce what is not forbidden by Scripture. The idea has been popularised by John Frame citing passages such as Romans 12:1 and 1Corinthians 10:32. He concludes "Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to prove that anything is divinely requiredspecifically for official services." This idea ignores the obvious distinction between generic commands and specific commands in the Bible. Yet the Lord's Day is a distinct time of worship set apart by God, sanctified from the rest of the days.
 
There are some very useful contributions refuting this idea here. Daniel Ritchie also does so in pp.63ff of his book.

Is a minister an employee?

This is a matter that is to be settled ultimately by Scripture. We bring worldly assumptions into this area at great peril to the church of Christ. When a member speaks of paying the minister's salary and having a right to demand things in return
they are expressing matters in entirely the wrong way. They have not 'hired' the minister, they have called him to exercise among them a function to which he has already been called by God. The spiritual offering of the individual's substance is to God, not a tax or a salary. Indeed, it is extremely dangerous to see it in this light, as though spiritual things might be bought and sold (Acts 8:18). In the
prophecy of Micah 3:11 this is rebuked and hirelings are also condemned from the mouth of Christ.

The ministry is a spiritual vocation not to be identified with secular employment. Where does this vocation or calling come from? Christ is the Head of the Church and He calls men inwardly Himself and then outwardly through the delegated authority of the courts of the Church who confirm that call (Ro 1:1, 1 Co 1:1). What is that man before he is ordained? He is a member of the Church, subject to the disciplinary
authority of Christ ministerially applying His decrees in the courts of His Church. What is he after ordination? He is a member of presbytery. He is an officer of Christ's church whom Christ has set apart for functions within that Church subject to the disciplinary authority of Christ ministerially applying His decrees in the courts
of His Church. As the older writers asserted the external call of the Church is mediate. A call that comes through a means; the means by which God calls men into the ministry is the church. We do not believe that men can set themselves up in the ministry without the mediate call of the Church but that does not mean that we are to regard that man as any less called of God than the prophets who were called by him
immediately and sent without means. The call from the church is a divine call mediated through the Church.

We must remember that a salary is not essential to the being of a minister. A minister who is retired may not have a salary or an active minister may forego a salary in exceptional circumstances (1 Cor 9:5,6; Acts 20:33; 2 Thess. 3:8, 9; 2 Cor. 11:8). Who pays a minister? Essentially it is Christ who pays a minister. He has ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor 9:14,15).
He is the one who lays down the principle that a labourer is worthy of his hire (Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7). Who were the disciples working for? For a Church? No, this was not possible. They were working for Christ. He had sent them out as labourers and would ensure in His providence that they were maintained. He is the Lord of the harvest who sends them into His harvest field. The master of the house instructs those entrusted with the stewardship of His resources to supply to the labourers that He has hired that which is worthy of that hire. The Master provides his people with the substance and the willingness to offer of their substance, part of which is communicated to the work of the ministry. He lays upon them this duty. The means of supply should not be confused with the one from whom the supply comes. In this sense a minister is no more an employee of the Church than he is of the bank through the money may be paid. As Turretin points out: 'these wages can be paid in various ways; either by the volun tary offerings of believers which they liberally contribute of their goods for the
common use of the church from Christian love and justice (as was done by the first Christians in the time of the apostles and for some ages after); or from a mutual agreement and the joint pay of individuals brought together; or paid from the public treasury by the Christian magistrate; or drawn from tithes; or finally, from the annual returns and produce of fields and farms given and left to the church and other
ecclesiastical property'.

The church does not recruit. Christ recruits His labourers Himself. The Church does not sack a minister as an employee. It proceeds against him as against any member of the Church to discipline with the purpose of restoration. It proceeds using the prescriptions of the King and Head of the Church using its delegated authority. Christ through the means of His Church suspends or deposes a minister just as Christ through the means of His Church suspends a communicant member or applies other censure. If the Church disciplines a minister for something that is not required by Christ then it is ultra vires, this shows that ministers are not in the employ of the Church but of Christ.

Martin Chemnitz puts it well when he says:
Just as God properly claims for himself the right to call, also mediately, and it is accordingly necessary for it to be done according to divine instruction, so also has
God properly reserved to himself alone this power of removing someone from the ministry. 1 Sam 2:30, 32; Hos 4:6. But since that dismissal takes places mediately, it is therefore necessary that it not take place except by instruction and divine direction. Therefore as long as God lets in the ministry his minister who teaches rightly and lives blamelessly, the church does not have the power, without divine command to remove an unwanted man, namely a servant of God. But when he does not build up the church by doctrine or life, but rather destroys, God himself removes him, 1 Sam 2:30; Hos 4:6. And then the church not only properly can but by all means should remove such a one from the ministry. For just as God calls ministers of the church, so he also removes them through legitimate means. But as the procedure of a call is to follow the instruction of the Lord of the harvest, so also if one is to be removed from the ministry, the church must show that that also is done by the command and will of the Lord.

It is said that ministers have an employment contract. The word is objectionable but for the sake of argument let us ask. Who is the contract with? The vows are administered by the courts of the Church but they are as the Confession says "not to be made to any creature, but to God alone" and are a part of religious worship since a vow is of the like nature to a lawful promissory oath "the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth". The Church can only impose what the Head of the Church imposes through His Word. The Church itself is bound by the same vows to Christ, showing that the vows are made to Christ and not the Church.

When we consider the titles applied to ministers in Scripture, it should be clear who "employs" ministers. They are God’s servants (1 Cor 3.5), farmers (1 Cor 3.6), and fellow-workers with one another under God’s employment (1 Cor 3.9). Paul is God’s master-builder (1 Cor 3.10). They are servants or “ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4.1).

There is an important Scriptural and theological principle at stake in asserting that ministers are not employed by the Church. Added to this there is the problem of compromising the spiritual independence of the Church. If we assert that ministers are employees in the same sense as civil callings then they are under the employment legislation of the nation which means that the State has the right to determine who can be a minister and who cannot and to regulate all aspects of their
'employment'.

getting Christ better

It is reasonably well known that Robert Bruce, the Scottish minister of the second generation of Reformers, emphasised that grace received through the sacraments is not different from that received through the Word. Both convey the same Christ. But as he went on to assert that while we do not get a better Christ in the sacraments than we do in the Word, there are times when we get Christ better. He said "we get Christ better nor we did before; Aye get the thing that we gat mair fullie, that is, with a surer apprehension nor we had of before; we get a better grip of Christ now: For be the sacrament my faith is nurished, the bounds of my saull is enlarged, and sa, quhere I had but a little grip of Christ before, as it were betwixt my finger and my thumbe, now 1 get him in my haill hande; and ay the mair that my faith growes, the better grip I get of Christ lesus. Sa the sacrament is felloun necessarie, an it were na mair but to get Christ better, and to get a faster apprehension of him be the sacrament nor we coidd have of before". Bruce spoke of it as leading to 'growth of faith and increase of holiness', so that the believer might say 'the bounds of my soul are inlarged... I grow in knowledge. I grow in apprehension. I grow in feeling... He changes the affections of my soul. He changes their faculties and qualities. Hearts and mind not changed in substance - but made new to the extent that we are new creatures.' 'Christ works in you a spiritual feeling', said Bruce, 'that in your heart and in your conscience you may fmd the effect of his Word.' The effect of having such new feelings is that the believer might obtain 'strength' to 'lay hold of mercy' and obtain 'strong resolve for bettering the self'. In the words of Bruce, 'there is no other lesson in Christianity than this - to shake off your lusts and affections more and more to renounce yourself, so that you may embrace Christ.'

George Gillespie explained this further in writing that believers are given the body and blood of Christ through preaching also, but in preaching there was
more 'human wisdom' mixed in, so it was not so 'pure' as the sacrament.'

In the words of the Scots Confession, 'The faithful in the right use of the Lord's table have sic a conjunction with the Lord Jesus Christ as the natural man cannot comprehend.'

Litigation among Christians

The subject of litigation among Christians, and even the relation which they stand in to one another as such, render the adjustment of their differences more delicate and embarrassing. It is always a work of difficulty to reconcile hostile parties, whatever the matter of strife may happen to be. Once involved in litigation about civil rights and property, men, not of the most contentious or obstinate tempers, have been known to persevere until they had ruined themselves and their families. When unhappily discord and contention arise between those who are allied by blood, or who were united by the bonds of close friendship, their variance is of all others the most inveterate and deadly. "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city; and their contentions are like the bars of a castle" (Prov. 18:19). If "love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave" (Song 8:6). Of all the ties which bind man to man, religion is the most powerful, and when once loosened or burst asunder, it is the hardest to restore. Religious differences engage and call into action the strongest powers of the human mind. Conscience comes to the aid of convictions of right, and zeal for the glory of God combines with that jealousy with which we watch over everything that is connected with our own reputation.

Feelings of personal offense and injury form no inconsiderable obstacle in the way of removing divisions in the Church. In one degree or another these are unavoidable, when religious differences arise and grow to a height. They are no proper ground of separation, and the recollection of them ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of a desirable reunion. If in any instance personal injury has been combined with injuries done to truth, those who have been the sufferers need to exert the utmost jealousy over their own spirits. Self-love will lead us insensibly to confound and identify the two; and what we flatter ourselves to be pure zeal for religion and hatred of sin, may, in the process of a rigid and impartial examination, be found to contain a large mixture of resentment for offenses which terminated on ourselves.

Victory, not truth, is too often the object of litigant parties, and provided they can gain this, though it should be achieved by over-reaching one another, and by practicing the low tricks of worldly policy, they will boast of a religious triumph.

Thomas McCrie(1772-1835).

McCrie well knew the sorrows of division. In 1806, with three other ministers, he was forced to separate from the Antiburgher side of the Secession Synod to form the Constitutional Associate Presbytery. In 1821 he published Two Discourses on the
Unity of the Church, Her Divisions, and Their Removal from which this excerpt is taken.

An open letter to Gordon Brown

To the Right Honourable Gordon Brown Prime Minister MP.

Dear Prime Minister,

I was most encouraged to learn that you had a "presbyterian conscience", one indeed which is capable of being offended. It is indeed a solemn matter to have a properly informed conscience, when we consider the danger of having what the Bible calls a "defiled" or even a "seared conscience". As the Scottish presbyterian Samuel Rutherford said, "We take nothing to the grave with us, but a good or evil conscience". He also warned that if you "break your conscience in twain...who then can mend it, and cast a knot on it?" If our conscience is properly informed by what God requires we will realise that we can never hope in ourselves to fulfil his righteous requirements. The Bible instructs us that nothing we can do but only the application of the atonement of Christ can "purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Hebrews 9:14). The reforming presbyterian Robert Bruce said "There is no man nor woman that is able to purge their conscience, to take away the guiltiness of sin off their conscience; it is only God who, by virtue of the blood of his Son, doth purge the conscience; therefore, they address them to God only."

In order to best inform your presbyterian conscience we would commend to you the close study of the Bible, together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge, the Westminster Larger Catechism (especially on the Ten Commandments) and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

As you study these matters your presbyterian conscience ought to smite you when you think of the evil of abortion as legalised murder that is carried out in the nation that you govern. It ought also to make you reconsider the legislation on embryological research and creating animal-human hybrid embryos that you have sponsored as you recover the Bible's teaching on the sanctity of all human life. Your voting record on moral matters is very alarming. It will be a solemn matter to have this record brought into view on the day of judgement with the condemning voice of a conscience now fully informed as well as the condemnation of the judge.

The Bible will also speak loudly to your presbyterian conscience about the fact that homosexuality is clearly against the law of God. This will make you look again at the Equality Bill with its ideological coercion and other legislation. As you look at the breadth and length of the law of God in the Ten Commandments it must be clear to a rightly informed conscience that your government and that of your predecessor have gone much further than all previous governments in passing legislation that positively undermines each one of the 10 commandments. It is a fearful thing to be using God-given power to encourage sin and restrain those who seek to do right.

Your presbyterian conscience rightly informed by Scripture and the Westminster Confession would make you reconsider the place that you have given to Roman Catholicism in visiting the Pope and seeking to amend the Act of Settlement.

There are many other matters that we could mention right down to the long-overdue required repeal of the Acts Recissory. The essence of it all is this the prayer that the Biblical and presbyterian principle that Christ alone is King in State and Church would sound loudly in your conscience and that you would follow it and implement it faithfully and sincerely. This would be by far the best for you, best for us and best for this nation and its future.

Yours sincerely,

MAV

‘So Catholic it forgot to be Christian’

These words from a priest in Ireland, in relation to the industrial home abuses carried out on children by Roman Catholic orders in the 20th Century are very solemn. Yet even more haunting are the words of one of the victims Michael O'Brien: "They raped me on a Saturday, gave me an unmerciful beating afterwards, and then gave me Communion on Sunday." One amongst thousands.

How much have the orders learned from this? They haven't fully paid their paltry 10% of the compensation package. They are failing to acknowledge their full responsibility and appear to be in such open conflict with the Roman hierarchy about the Church's response that the Pope will have to be brought in. This situation looks set to be overtaken by the publication of other reports this summer into sexual abuse committed by priests and the efforts by church authorities to cover it up.

The Tablet newspaper comments in its editorial: "It is clear the problem was not just "a few bad apples" or even a whole barrel of them, but the arrogance of an almighty Church too powerful for its own good. It is useless to blame the state or society for allowing it to happen. The blame lies within the Church itself. The power and the glory that were so badly misused had a theological, even ideological, basis. This told the Church that it was "a true and perfect society" (in the words of Pius IX): whatever it did was right, and whatever might contradict that impression had to be suppressed. Only "bad Catholics" would dare whisper it." Is not the ideological and theological basis, the Roman Catholic elevation of the Church above Scripture? While this is the case the law of God will never be adhered to as it ought. As the papal historian put it, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

sad divisions that make us lose the fair scent of the Rose of Sharon

"One day when he [Samuel Rutherford] was preaching in Edinburgh," says Robert Woodrow, "after dwelling for some time on the differences of the day, he broke out with: 'Woe is unto us for these sad divisions that make us lose the fair scent of the Rose of Sharon', and then he went on commending Christ, going over all his precious styles and titles about a quarter of an hour; upon which the laird of Glanderston said, 'Ay, now you are right; hold you there'."

Rutherford mentions the same concern - that sad times and energy in combating divisions and defections may cloud the loveliness of Christ if we are not careful - in the Trial and Triumph of Faith. He says,'the truth is, while we endeavour to gain a grain-weight of truth, it is much if we lose not a talent-weight of goodness and Christian love'. Rutherford was such a resolute defender of the truth, however, out of devotion to Christ as King and Head of the Church. We ought not to run to the other danger of abandoning any contention for the faith and the truth because there is a temptation that we may not keep it in balance with everything else.

Rutherford is very wise in his counsel. He says that we need to keep the glory of Christ in view together with the condition of the times so that we know what we are contending for. It is lack of love for Christ that hinders faithful contending. 'Christ hath too many occasional friends; but the ground of all is this, "I love Jesus Christ, but I have not the gift of burning quick for Christ." Oh, how securely should faith land us out of the gun-shot of the prevailing power of a black hour of darkness! Faith can make us able to be willing, for Christ, to go through a quarter of hell's pain'. We also need to view free grace lest we think of ourselves more highly than we ought and think that we earn something by faithful contending.

Listen to Rutherford's commendation of the Rose of Sharon.

Should Christ, the condition of affairs we are now in, the excellency of free grace, be seen in all their own lustre and dye, we should learn much wisdom from these three. Christ speedeth little in conquering of lovers: because we have not "seen his shape at any time," we look not upon Christ, but upon the accidents that are beside Christ; and therefore, few esteem Christ a rich pennyworth. But there is not a rose out of heaven, but there is a blot and thorn growing out of it, except that one only rose of Sharon, which blossometh out glory. Every leaf of the rose is a heaven, and serveth "for the healing of the nations;" every white and red in it, is incomparable glory; every act of breathing out its smell, from everlasting to everlasting, is spotless and unmixed happiness. Christ is the outset, the master-flower, the uncreated garland of heaven, the love and joy of men and angels. But the fountain-love, the fountain-delight, the fountain-joy of men and angels is more; for out of it floweth all the seas, springs, rivers, and floods of love, delight, and joy. Imagine all the rain and dew, seas, fountains, and floods, since the creation, were in one cloud, and these multiplied in measures, for number to many millions of millions, and then divided in drops of showers to an answerable number of men and angels;—this should be a created shower, and end in a certain period of time; and this huge cloud of so many rivers and drops, should dry up, and rain no more. But we cannot conceive so of Christ: for if we should imagine millions of men and angels to have a coeternal dependent existence with Christ, and they eternally in the act of "receiving grace for grace out of his fullness," the flux and issue of grace should be eternal, as Christ is. For Christ cannot tire or weary from eternity to be Christ; and so, he must not, he cannot but be an infinite and eternal flowing sea, to diffuse and let out streams and floods of boundless grace. Say that the rose were eternal; the sweet smell, the loveliness of greenness and colour must be eternal.

Oh, what a happiness, for a soul to lose its excellency in His transcendent glory! What a blessedness for the creature, to cast in his little all, in Christ's matchless all-sufficiency! Could all the streams retire into the fountain and first spring, they should be kept in a more sweet and firm possession of their being, in the bosom of their first cause, than in their borrowed channels that they now move in. Our neighbourhood, and retiring in, to dwell forever and ever in the fountain-blessedness, Jesus Christ, with our borrowed goodness, is the firm and solid fruition of our eternal happy being. Christ is the sphere, the connatural first spring and element of borrowed drops, and small pieces of created grace. The rose is surest in being, in beauty, on its own stalk and root: let life and sap be eternally in the stalk and root, and the rose keep its first union with the root, and it shall never wither, never cast its blossom nor greenness of beauty. It is violence for a gracious soul to be out of his stalk and root; union here is life and happiness; therefore the Church's last prayer in canonic Scripture is for union, (Rev. 22:20.) "Amen: Even so, come, Lord Jesus." It shall not be well till the Father, and Christ the prime heir, and all the weeping children, be under one roof in the palace royal. It is a sort of mystical lameness, that the head wanteth an arm or a finger; and it is a violent and forced condition, for arm and finger to be separated from the head. The saints are little pieces of mystical Christ, sick of love for union. The wife of youth, that wants her husband some years, and expects he shall return to her from oversea lands, is often on the shore; every ship coming near shore is her new joy; her heart loves the wind that shall bring him home. She asks at every passenger news: "Oh! saw ye my husband? What is he doing? When shall he come? Is he shipped for a return?" Every ship that carrieth not her husband, is the breaking of her heart. What desires hath the Spirit and Bride to hear, when the husband Christ shall say to the mighty angels, "Make you ready for the journey; let us go down and divide the skies, and bow the heaven: I will gather my prisoners of hope unto me; I can want my Rachel and her weeping children no longer. Behold, I come quickly to judge the nations." The bride, the Lamb's wife, blesseth the feet of the messengers that preach such tidings, "Rejoice, O Zion, put on thy beautiful garments; thy King is coming." Yea, she loveth that quarter of the sky, that being rent asunder and cloven, shall yield to her Husband, when he shall put through his glorious hand, and shall come riding on the rainbow and clouds to receive her to himself.

schism undoubted in the body of Christ

Although Carl Trueman seems to have a more shrewd insight into what makes the Church of Scotland evangelical tick, several Free Church ministers here, here and here are inviting them over to the Free Church, in some cases with a glimmer of a promise of relaxed distinctives. Some of the comment makes reference to the scandal of schism. Yet it seems strange that only last week the Free Church General Assembly approved the December Commission of Assembly's removal of the suspension of the Free Church (Continuing) Ministers in 2000. We have no affiliation to either but the matter is extremely baffling. What is strange is that it was expressly stated: "strictly on the grounds that the FCC is a denomination distinct from and separate from the FCS as affirmed in the judgment of the Court of Session in the finding referred to above." "Were these men not now a separate and fully-operative church apart from the FCS there would be good reason for regarding their suspensions as still valid and such action as proposed here for the FCS to take would not be called for". The logic is impenetrable. It is strange because it is unclear how ecclesiastical discipline can be lifted purely on the basis that the parties are now in a separate denomination. Does this not give open licence to anyone to become a fugitive from discipline in that simply because they are within a different denomination? Does it not also undermine the church discipline if censures can be lifted without repentance on the behalf of the parties involved? This is acknowledged as a difficulty but said to be only a temporary departure from the principle that evidence of repentance is due from parties under discipline prior to their being restored. Not only this but it is expressly said that it is difficult to see how these suspensions can have any meaningful purpose for the FCS now, although this is not to admit that they were inappropriate when imposed'.

The FCS does not see the fact that the FCC is in direct competition as a censurable offence either. "The fact that the FCC may still claim to be the FCS, and thus the rightful successors to the 1843 Free Church, should not be regarded by the FCS as a barrier to removing the suspensions or undertaking any of the other proposals set out in this report".

All of this, apparently, should demonstrate that "the FCS will show publicly that they value highly the unity of Christ’s visible church and the interests of the gospel". Rather than recognise a schism and seek to heal it, they believe the best way to heal it is to recognise the other party as a separate denomination and this apparently removes the schism and restores peace. The fact that they go on to dwell upon resolving property issues shows that this motivation lies behind this action.

We can see how very far Scottish Presbyterianism has drifted from the true concern of the Westminster Divines and the Second Reformation, represented by James Durham, Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie for the unity of the visible Church. Most presbyterian denominations in Scotland with their constant cycle of fraternal niceties seem to think that this constitutes unity and smoors over the fact of schism. The Westminster Divines were of an entirely different view. As James Walker records, when the Independents proposed to the Westminster Assembly a friendly co-existence and occasional communion, it was resolutely declined with the explanation. "That will be no plain and total separation," said the former ; "we shall be working substantially towards the same end." "So,"it was answered, "might the Donatists and Novatians have pled, and indeed almost all the separatists who have figured in the Church's history. Such separation was unknown in the apostles' time, unless it were
used by false teachers : all who professed Christianity then held communion together as one Church. If you can join with us occasionally in acts of worship, you ought to act with us in joint communion, not in separated congregations. God's way of revealing truth to such as are otherwise minded, is not by setting men at a distance from each other. That you should be a distinct Christian organization, taking members from our Churches who may have scruples of conscience, is schism undoubted in the body of Christ."

CofS General Assembly requires evangelicals to sin

This is what is behind the accurate Scotsman headline 'Kirk orders ban on gay minister debate'. Evangelicals adhere to what the ordination service in the Church of Scotland outlines: that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the supreme rule of faith and life in the Church of Scotland. They are now being asked not to adhere to the Scriptures and denounce homosexuality as a sin. They have ruled that no members can speak in public on the issue of openly homosexual, non-celibate ministers. Only the Church and Society, HIV/Aids Project and Mission Discipleship committees can speak out on the broader issue of human sexuality. The General Assembly has instructed all authoritative bodies within Scotland's national church to avoid any public comment on the matter -- including press releases, briefings to the media, and blogging -- and to avoid taking any decisions in relation to 'contentious matters of human sexuality, with respect to Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011'. They have done this while insisting that the induction of Scott Rennie proceeds.

What we are witnessing is the outworking of the controversial Life and Work editorial which stated. 'The dissenters who have taken ordination vows to preserve the unity and peace of the Church perhaps ought to 'agree to differ' on this and allow the Church of Scotland to remain a broad and inclusive church that can celebrate its diversity while remaining true to the Gospel.' They are being forced to agree to differ. In terms of the ordering of the Assembly's business evangelicals have been ambushed and outflanked and in terms of so-called 'unity', patronised and whitewashed. One evangelical was quoted as recognising this - members were now "effectively prevented from speaking out in public on this". This cannot possibly bind anyone authoritatively, apart from the fact that

two-thirds of the presbyters within the Church had no vote upon it their ordination vows resist it. Evangelicals must protest and speak out or else they are complying with sinful terms. The Lochcarron-Skye overture noted that "a lengthy period of reflection has elapsed without a resolution of the issue". This is now to be extended.

 

In commending the motion, the Rev Angus Morrison (once a very conservative evangelical) said any split in Church ranks would be a "deeply flawed" solution to the issue. "It is comparatively easy to split a church, but the challenge of healing the divisions is of an entirely different nature," he said. "The notion that these tensions within a church can best be solved by going separate ways is deeply flawed. It is a path rather to the multiplication of problems."  The idea is to let things cool down and take the momentum out of separation.

The decision has not gone under the Barrier Act which would make it constitutional as happened with the ordination of women which was passed with the consent of a majority of Presbyteries on 22nd May 1968. This may yet happen. The fact is that it was even before that point for evangelicals to realise that Scripture had been cast aside. This happened constitutionally, when the Confession was modified. It also happened in 1843 when a schism was made by those remaining in the CofS with those who realised that the constitution of the CofS could only be maintained outwith the Establishment.

The CofS and the rejection of the Bible

This is an addition to the previous post commenting on the recent debate.

 

What we see is that when Scripture is abandoned, all wisdom and reason are set aside any argument will do to defend personal preference, "they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?" (Jer. 8:9)

 

The Church of Scotland was once known as the fairest daughter of the Reformation on account of the purity and extent of her adherence to Scripture.

 

In the Scots Confession (1560) the Reformers write, "if any man will note in this our confession any article or sentence repugnant to God's holy word, that it would please him of his gentleness, and for Christian charity's sake, to admonish us of the same in writing; and we, of our honour and fidelity, do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God (that is, from his holy scriptures), or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amiss".

 

The Church of Scotland long ago abandoned this position and in doing so abandoned any moral claim to be known as the true heirs of such men. How infinitely far from it they are now. We ought to have the spirit of mourning.

 

"how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!...Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself.   The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation". (Lam 1:1. 9, 10). 

 

The Church of Scotland has set out a clear stall

says Alyson Thomson, head of communications, "it is a modern church for a modern Scotland. The commission is delighted that the Church has, as Scott Rennie requested, taken an honest look at itself over the issue of sexuality and decided that the values of fairness, equality, dignity and respect are of more worth than those of ignorance and intolerance." The tone of this reflects the tone and type of argument adopted by those defending Rennie throughout the public portion of the debate.

The arguments are emotive, sociological and fallacious. The stall is anything but clear in terms of clear thinking and arguing.

First we have the fallacy of appealing to novelty (argumentum ad novitatem). This assumes that what is modern is good, correct or superior simply because it is modern.
This is also seen in the language used by the media to describe evangelical opposition under the label "traditionalists". The assumption is that because what is modern is good - the only reason you oppose it must be because you think that what is old and traditional is good.

It is entirely inflammatory and incorrect to describe the opposition as ignorant and intolerant. It is another fallacy, this time one that employs insultive, compromising or pejorative language to influence the judgement of others. It is also an ad hominem personal attack. Don't listen to the arguments of these people they are intolerant and ignorant. It doesn't matter how well the opposition reason then, they have been characterised as ignorant and shouldn't be listened to.

Then we have George Cowie of the Aberdeen Presbytery saying: "Are we to tell people that because of the way God made you, you must live alone and not have a life's companion?" This is the naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature, which claims that what is, is what ought to be. Even Richard Dawkins can see the problem with this kind of argument, saying that a society that uses nature as a moral compass would be "a very nasty society in which to live". The point about this kind of argument is that it ignores the reality of sin, especially original sin. It assumes that what is "discovered" in the natural realm takes precedence over clear statements of Scripture. This is natural theology not only gone mad but gone very bad. Cowie goes on to exacerbate things by saying: "It was once considered to be an illness, or a lifestyle choice. Many, many people now consider it part of an individual's make-up."
This is the fallacy of the argumentum ad populum, appeal to majority thinking. This too is logically fallacious. Just because a belief is widely held does not mean it is correct; the more people that believe it doesn't increase its accuracy.

Reverend (sic) Lindsay Biddle of Affirmation Scotland, a group which supports gay and lesbian clergy, said: "Scripture does not address homosexuality, much less condemn it." There is no qualification of this or explanation. It is truly remarkable. It is the kind of argument that one thinks that if you assert it often enough, people will accept it, even though you don't defend it.

Rennie himself was describing his opponents as "those that don't want any change,".
He added: "We don't stone women, we don't stone adulterers, we've moved on from that." This is the idea that the position held by evangelicals is stone age and therefore to be dismissed. What has the mode of civil punishment of certain crimes which are always denounced as sin by Scripture to do with whether or not homosexuality is sinful? The idea is to insinuate that the opposition are like the Taliban.

Rev David Court and Rev Dr William Philip of the Fellowship of Confessing Churches, who opposed Rev Rennie's appointment said: "We deeply regret the decision of the General Assembly, which has brought great shame on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin.

"This is about far more than just sexuality. The very nature of the Christian gospel is at stake."

Rev Steven Reid, said:

"I think it deepens the divide. That's an accurate assessment of the situation we are in. There have been issues down the years, issues to do with the scriptures, and this has brought them to a head...For those of us who hold the scriptures to be the supreme rule of faith, the decision seems to fly in the face of that belief." The argument here is based on Scripture, which is an appeal to an authority above men's thinking.

the presbyterian downturn in Scotland

As many wait to see what the Church of Scotland will make of biblical morality at the end of this week there are other indications of a downturn on the ecclesiastical scene in Scotland.

Some of the debate turns upon what it means that 'the act of Ordination and Induction the Church of Scotland declares that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the supreme rule of faith and life in the Church of Scotland'. The evangelicals have a tight interpretation of this but the response by the Aberdeen Presbytery notes that this statement 'has its origins in the first of the Articles Declaratory which declares, ‘The Church of Scotland adheres to the Scottish Reformation; receives the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as its supreme rule of faith and life; and avows the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic
faith founded thereupon.’ The presbytery goes on to assert that the word of God is not 'synonymous with the Scriptures', 'but it can, in part, be discerned from the Scriptures through prayer and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit'. This, they believe allows for widely varying interpretations according to individual experience.

It shows that the confessional revision movement has ultimately arrived at the point where no statement can express meaningfully the diversity of views within the Church of Scotland without being so vague as to mean that Scripture is interpreted entirely differently.

The Free Church have found this in their discussions with the CofS which some in the FC General Assembly unsuccessfully attempted to bring to a close. The idea of an associate presbytery had been dropped as unworkable, and there are no overt moves towards integration because the fundamental problem is still the authority of Scripture. The Convener of the Committee said, however, 'we have to take risks some times'. Which is no doubt exactly the objection in the minds of those trying to suspend the discussions. The question was asked as to why the joint report says 'both churches stand in the Reformed tradition'. The Convener responded: 'That is what they claim. It may be a different understanding to us'. A response which shows that they have entangled themselves in the same net as the evangelicals within the Church of Scotland by allowing vague statements to cover contrary positions. It isn't far from here to accepting a vague statement that covers contrary positions on the Scriptures also.

Yet there are problems of contrary positions within the Free Church itself. It's position and constitution couldn't be much clearer on paper. The most obvious is in relation to worship where a special General Assembly is expected to debate in 2010 whether the FC can adopt musical instruments and hymns. The strange thing is that those pushing overtly for the latter are bound by ordination vows which bind them solemnly to assert, maintain and defend the purity of worship in the Church which was clearly explained to them at ordination and induction to exclude hymns and musical instruments. There was a clear encouragement of freedom of expression on this which was contrary to those vows. ID Campbell picked up on the fact that the regulative principle was being skewed in the report by a reference to the primacy of Scripture. He pointed out: 'This report affirms the primacy of Scripture. Primacy is something you start from. Scripture is a finality not a primacy'.

'We have taken serious vows regarding a particular position on worship. We’re now being asked to approve a process in this report that begs serious questions. We seem to be asked to reinvent the wheel. It seems to be predetermining the outcome. He did not think he could approve a report that would allow songs of human compositions and instruments.'

Others defended the idea that one could have taken these vows and then challenge the Assembly for Scriptural proof of the position. This is absurd, if someone has taken vows and changed their minds it is not their business break their vows and then to change the Church's mind so that the vows can be changed.

Alex Macdonald raised an interesting point which was that in the period 1900 – 1904 'there was no focus whatsoever on the presence of worship, the practise at the time was to use psalms, hymns and instruments. It was not viewed as a fundamental principle of the Free Church'. This reveals the influence of the spirit of the Declaratory Act on the 1900 men and the fact that they were willing to allow everything to continue without correction to ensure that the property would be secured. This ambiguous position is the root of the current movement.

Some were arguing that it is not a constitutional matter - simply a case of changing legislation as had been done in the 19th Century. The Westminster Confession, however, requires singing of psalms only. Further the vows are part of the constitution and the Animus Imponentis was clear. The fact that the change is to be approved by a plenary Assembly and to go through the Barrier Act will make the change constitutional. Dr Kennedy would have separated from the FC if this step had been taken to constitutionalise impure worship. Why? The Free Church would have departed from its constitution and he could no longer keep his ordination vows by being part of it. The same will be the case for the FC now. Once this legislation goes through the procedure envisaged it can no longer be regarded as having a constitution equivalent to the FC of 1843.

The Art of Living Well to God

Apparently it was Aristotle who coined the phrase 'the art of living well'. He said that 'those who educate children well are more to be honored than parents, for these gave only life, those the art of living well'. When we consider these matters from a higher perspective we will see that it is God who gives life and he must teach us how we are to live well. The Reformation philosopher Petrus Ramus built upon Aristotle's phrase in his Commentariorum de religione christiana (1576), he defined theology as ars bene vivendi “ the art of living well”, which he divided into “the need for proper faith” and “the actions of faith, man’s observance of God’s laws”. This showed that it was not a philosophical question but rather a matter that could only come from revealed truth. William Ames, who popilarised the ideas and method of Ramus, improved upon the phrase by defining theology (Marrow, pp.1-3) as the 'art of living well to God'. He, together with William Perkins, was very much a pioneer of the practical theology of the Puritans. Ethics must have a summum bonum - a highest good, God himself is the standard and highest good. The Westminster Divines defined this well in speaking of man's chief end as being to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. The art of living well is summed up in that.

This was very much the concern of the puritans. Hence their commitment to spiritual diaries which allowed them to examine their lives. To the Puritan the art of living was the highest art form, as Owen Watkins indicates, this was the principle that lay behind Puritan autobiographies, ‘that the only masterpiece worthy of the name was to be achieved in the most complex and difficult of all forms of creative endeavour: a human life’ (Watkins, p.1). This is also why the puritans laid such stress upon sermons full of practical and experimental divinity. It was through authentic experience of the Word of God that the saint would live the life exemplified in Scripture. John Owen shows the progression of the experience of the Word. It begins with divinely assisted understanding, then follows ‘a spiritual sense of the goodness, power, and efficacy of the word and the things contained in it, in the conveyance of the grace of God unto our souls...By the one...our minds are refreshed; and by the other, our souls are nourished’. ‘To complete the experience intended, there follows hereon a conformity in the whole soul and conversation unto the truth of the word, or the mind of God in it, wrought in us by its power and efficacy’. Puritan sermons were therefore weighted towards application or the 'uses'of the doctrine of Scripture.

The puritan George Swinnock has a book which is rather like Thomas Watson's 'The Godly Man drawn with a scripture pencil'. The book is called 'The Christian Man's Calling' and in it he writes: 'I have drawn the saint's picture, by which thou mayest perceive somewhat of the beauty of his person, and the excellency and loveliness of his life. This indeed is the true life, all other but the shadow of living'. Godliness is a Godlikeness, bearing the image of the One who is entitled 'The Beauty of Holiness' and who clothes his own people in holy beauties from the womb of the morning. It is a likeness to Christ and a conformity to His image. To me to live is Christ. Living must be done in dependence upon the Son of God who loved His people and gave Himself for them. John Willison writes: O that we could learn the heavenly art of living by faith on the Son of God, by continued dependence on him, and making application to him for righteousness and strength; righteousness for removing our guilt, and justifying our persons before God ; and strength for performing duties, conquering lusts, and bearing crosses!'

Where is this found in the New Testament? The people of God are his 'workmanship' (poiema) which means a created thing. They are 'created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph 2:10). In Titus 2:10 the saints are to 'adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things' - they are to have an order and arrangement in their lives that corresponds to the truth of Scripture. There is an order in beauty - the best things in the best order, the most attractive things in the most attractive order. They live 'as it becometh the gospel'. The beauty of the gospel in its perfect wisdom and grace, the manifold wisdom and grace of God, is reflected in their lives. Swinnock says that man is made to be the mirror of God's glory: 'Man is made as a glass, to represent the perfections that are in God. A glass can receive the beams of the sun into it, and reflect them back again to the sun. The excellencies of God appear abundantly in His works; man is made to be the glass where these beams of divine glory should be united and received, and also from him reflected back to God again.'Who would not desire this?

The life of faith is available to all. The poorest among us, and the least educated can travel this road to Heaven. The poor may have little opportunity to become wealthy or honourable, but they can live a truly happy life through faith! They can live such a life just as much as the greatest princes and learned educators. Whoever you are, if you desire to lift up your condition and change the few days of your pilgrimage into happier and longer days, faith is the art of living well, and living long! (Samuel Ward)

How one small nation changed the world

This is the title of a conference to be held later this year: Scotland's Global Impact - How one small nation changed the world! There is nothing of the religious impact upon the world made by Scotland in this conference, however. Unfortunately the Scots have the counter-legacy of the Englightenment to own up to also - as this book demonstrates.

Yet when President Mbeki of South Africa addressed the Scottish Parliament in 2001, almost all the historical links that he cited between the two countries were related to missionaries. Wherever Presbyterian churches exist throughout the world, Scotland's influence is witnessed, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. David Bogue in 1818 was so bold as to say: ‘Scotland has since the Reformation sent more saints to heaven than any country in Europe of the same population.’ We wonder if he would have been confirmed in this when he saw the fuller effects of the Scottish missionary movement. I recommend Chapter 8. The Hope and Scotland's Missionaries in Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope for further reading.Scotland’s first foreign missionary, Alexander Duff, declared: "Oh, what promises are ours, if we had only faith to grasp them! What a promise is that in the Great Commission – Go and make disciples of all nations, and lo I am with you, even to the end of the world! We go forth amongst the hundreds of millions of the nations; we find gigantic systems of idolatry and superstition consolidated for thousands of years … they tower as high mountains. But what does faith say? Believe and it shall be. And if any Church on earth will realise that faith, to that Church will the honour belong of evangelising the nations, and bringing down the mountains."

It was a clear eschatology that gave rise to this movement. Murray says: "The theological impetus which lay behind the new missionary era came from the Puritan books of the seventeenth century, which must be classified as Calvinistic." In his commentary on Psalm 72 David Dickson cites nineteen benefits that will ensue as the gospel prospers in all nations so that they call Christ blessed.

I wonder if more prayers have been made from Scotland in the past for the conversion of the Jews, an event that will certainly change the world. Iain Murray comments:

The future of the Jews had decisive significance for them because they believed that, though little is clearly revealed of the future purposes of God in history, enough has been given us in Scripture to warrant the expectation that with the calling of the Jews there will come far-reaching blessing for the world. Puritan England and Covenanting Scotland knew much of spiritual blessing and it was the prayerful longing for wider blessing, not a mere interest in unfulfilled prophecy, which led them to give such place to Israel

There is no place for pride, however, Scotland's own darkness is now so profound that it will not be long before she requires missionaries herself.

Keeping a Spiritual Diary

Keeping a spiritual diary is a practice that has often appeared wherever puritan piety is found. John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim in the The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism describe the early Puritans in this way: "They prescribed a demanding regime of personal devotions, including godly reading, psalm-singing, prayer, fasting and spiritual meditation. They recommended practices of self-discipline, including keeping a spiritual diary and private covenanting." Isaac Ambrose in his Prima: The First Things in Relation to the Middle and Last Things, published in 1674, emphasised the importance of a spiritual diary and gave an example from his own. Thomas Goodwin found the practice helpful in his seven year struggle for personal assurance - during which time he was "intent on the conviction God had wrought in him, of the heinousness of sin, and of his own sinful and miserable state by nature; of the difference between the workings of natural conscience, though enlightened, and the motions of a holy soul, changed and acted by the Spirit, in an effectual work of peculiar saving grace. And accordingly he kept a constant diary." An excellent post on Puritan Diary keeping is here. I wonder if it is significant that in the past they kept private diaries and today we maintain public weblogs? 
 
It was also a feature of later piety. Jessie Thain's Diary is a good example. John Macdonald of Ferintosh - the apostle of the North - writes as follows.
'Among the many omissions of my past life [he was c.36] which I have to lament, that of not keeping a diary, containing some account of the Lord's dealing with my soul, and of the work of my ministry, is not the least. I was chiefly prevented from this by a false humility, and was not thinking anything done in me or by me worthy of being recorded; and as reckoning myself so far behind those who usually kept such diaries that it would be presumptuous on my part to attempt anything of that kind. I now find, however, that this was a mistake, and I have no doubt that Satan was at the bottom of it; for if the Lord wrought in me and by me in any measure, however unworthy I am -- and none is more so, as He knows, on the face of the earth -- His work deserves to be recorded, and some account of it might be serviceable to myself, useful to others, and conducive in some measure to His glory. I would, therefore, in future endeavour to keep some account of my labours, with anything in my own soul, in providence regarding me, or in my success in the vineyard, which may be deserving of notice. And I begin with this year (1816).'

Praying for the Reign of Grace Over All the Earth

The Larger Catechism asks the question
Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition [of the Lord's prayer]?
Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

The Southern Presbyterian William Swan Plumer, a good commentator and an attractive experimental writer writes on this subject in 'The rock of our salvation' and provides a prayer that illustrates this spirit.

God's people can pray for the reign of grace over all the earth. Such supplications are agreeable to the will of God. Psa. 122:6. The first three petitions of the Lord's prayer embrace the same subject. There is too little united, hearty calling on God. All the progress hitherto made in bringing men to a saving knowledge of the Redeemer has been in answer to the fervent cries of the children of God. There is nothing more powerful for good than prayer.

There should be a much deeper tone of piety in all the churches. Love is too cold. Faith too often staggers. Repentance -sheds too few tears. Joy has but few feasts. Pity for the perishing too seldom stirs the soul to its depths. Adoring views of God have too little power over men's minds. Hope is too feeble to impart much animation.

Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts ! The whole earth is full of thy glory. Blessed be the Lord for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun,and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth, and the fulness thereof. Still more would we bless thee for the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush, and for thy precious loving-kindness, and for the precious seed of gospel truth, and for the precious promises, and for precious faith to believe thy word, and for the precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, and for the precious death of thy saints, and for the precious name of Jesus, which is as ointment poured forth, and for the precious blood of the Son of God, through whom we have redemption. Look in mercy on this dark world. Remember Zion. Make Joseph a fruitful bough, whose branches run over the wall. Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion. Bring back the captivity of thy people, that Jacob may rejoice and Israel be glad. Thou hast set thy Son on thy holy hill of Zion. Righteousness is the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. Hasten the time when the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the young .lion and the fat- ling together, and a child shall lead them; and the cow and the bear shall feed, and their young ones lie down together, and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the nations shall learn war no more, and thy ancient people the Jews and the fulness of the Gentiles shall be brought in; when the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ; when the Lord shall call them his people which are not now his people; when the angel shall fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.

Lord God of hosts, cut short the work in righteousness. Let the ploughman overtake the reaper, and let a nation be born in a day.

"Pity the nations, O our God;
Constrain the earth to come ;
Send thy victorious word abroad,
And bring the strangers home."

We are indeed asking great things, but we do it at thy command. We ask no more than thou hast promised to thy Son, and no more than he has purchased by his most precious blood, and no more than he himself intercedes for in heaven. Amen.

Scotland's heritage

Scotland has had an influence in spiritual terms far beyond its size. The Scottish Church was the fairest daughter of the Reformation. The number of theologians and theological books produced in Scotland was beyond the proportions of its economic prosperity and wealth. It may not have been perfect in the reviving and reforming times of the Covenant but it achieved what no other nation has. The historian Symington shows that it appeared at this time as the Church shall appear in the millennium: "But above all these, to the Christian, to the lover of the Saviour and His Church, this period is pregnant with instruction and with promise, the brightest day of Scotland’s Church—a day in which millennial glory seems to dawn. A Church, holding directly after her Head in heaven, with doctrines, and institutions, and polity based immediately on the Holy Scriptures; with standards so excellent; with ministers so pious and faithful; with people so enlightened and devoted; allied to a Christian reformed State, without any encroachment upon its independence or compromise of her own; with schools for Scriptural education and seats of learning consecrated by sound religion; and banded together in holy Covenant; and standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made her free, and resolutely prosecuting her proper purposes, presents, an object commanding admiration. This is the Church of Scotland with ,which we aspire to the honour of being identified."

Andrew Cant said the following at the time of the National Covenant:

How far other nations have outstripped Scotland in naturals, we have outstripped them in spirituals. Her pomp is less, her purity more. They had more of Antichrist than she, She had more of Christ than they. They have but an ill said mass in England. Satan gets through in lordly supremacy, pomp and fairding, whorish buskings.. men's precepts, medley of rites.

But where is this Scotland today?

Israel and the Church : part 2

The previous post re:Israel and the Church should be understood from the right perspective and we trust that this was reasonably clear. There are three main perspectives in relation to Israel and the Church.
1) Replacement Theology. This perspective teaches that the Church replaces Israel. Charles D. Provan's title "The Church is Israel Now" may not intend to signify this but it is certainly unfortunate and not a phraseology to be used. Replacement Theology (sometimes called Supercessionism) was taken to its very unpleasant anti-Semitic extreme in medieval Roman Catholicism. This perspective asserts that the Church exactly replaces Israel, so that the latter is always to be read into the Old Testament as the replacement of the former.
2)Repudiation theology. The perspective that repudiates any connection between Israel and the Church. It is a view classically espoused by Dispensationalism which views the Church as a mystery which is unmentioned and unknown in Old Testament Times. According to this view it is a parenthesis required as a contingency plan because Israel rejected Christ as Messiah. The prophetic time-clock for Israel has therefore been paused at this point but will resume because the Mosaic covenant with Israel is intended to be permanent. Interestingly Romanism has now shifted to the idea that this covenant is permanent and the Jews are saved in their own way.
3) Reform Theology. The third perspective is that the Church represents an extension of Israel because there is only one overall people of God and one overall covenant. This is the view of covenant theology. The Church is the reform or renewal of Israel. The New Covenant extends what was already present in the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:9-11 identifies the New Testament era as the time of reformation in speaking of the tabernacle and its ceremonial ordinances:

"Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building"

These perspectives have a connection with eschatology. Replacement theology is seen in classical A-Millennialism of the pessimistic variety. Augustine espoused this view. Consistent A-Millennialists see no role for ethnic Israel and no unfulfilled prophecy related to them. OT prophecy is exclusively interpreted as fulfilled in the Gentile Church. Preterism especially full-preterism has a tendency to replacement theology. The only exception is where partial preterism may join with the optimistic A-Millennial in expecting a conversion of the Jews.

The repudiation of a connection between Israel and the Church is, as mentioned, connected to Dispensationalism and similar types of premillennialism.

Postmillenialism is the most consistent application of Reform theology in that it sees a role for ethnic Israel in being brought back to its olive tree and Israel blossoming and budding and filling the face of the earth with fruit.

There is also an ecclesiological aspect to these perspectives.

Roman Catholicism (and Episcopalianism to an extent)is an express imitation of the ceremonial forms of Israel with its sacrificing priesthood and festivals. Erastianism assumes that the Church should be governed as Israel was with a monarch at its head, according to an erroneous interpretation.

Repudiation between Israel and the Church is applied in areas of Church Government and practice such as baptism rejecting the application of the seal of the covenant to children and the sabbath, in some cases rejecting the abiding principle of the sabbath. It says that unless something is expressly commanded in the New Testament it is no longer applicable to the Church.

The reform view of Israel and the Church sees continuity and extension of the principles established in Israel's church government but does not see the ceremonial ordinances only imposed until the time of reformation as permanent. What has not been abrogated continues. This is the view upheld by presbyterianism.

It should be recognised that individuals are more or less consistent in applying these things. Thus there are amillennialist presbyterians and postmillennial baptists. Nevertheless the broad observations obtain.

The Church as the True Israel

What is the Church? To ask this question is almost to ask a similar question concerning God's kingship and kingdom. God is king over all things in relation to his creation, He is completely sovereign. "His Kingdom ruleth over all" (Ps. 103:19). God's Kingdom (Heb. Malkuth) is his kingly rule. There is the kingly rule of His power in nature, and the kingly rule of His grace amongst men that are the recipients of his special grace (Exodus 19:6). Even in His complete sovereignty God shares His kingly rule in a limited sphere as a grace gift to those He chooses to make His servants (1Chron. 17:14).

The phrase "the kingdom of God" is frequent in the Gospels and that reminds us of the intense expectation surrounding this matter at that time. It was prophesied in connection with the coming of Messiah and it meant that instead of rebellion and disobedience, Israel would truly bow to the kingly rule of God's grace and therefore know the LORD's continued blessing (Matt 6:10). Messiah would bring the kingdom (Luke 11:20 & Mark 1:14-15).

The Prophets, however, spoke of only a remnant initially being formed by means of whom Israel would ultimately be saved (Jer. 23:3, Zech. 13:7-9, Micah 4:4-7 & 5:1-4, Is. 4; Is. 53:1). In Micah 4 the remnant becomes the seed or new root of Israel and determines the nature and form that it will take. Christ's phrase in Luke 12:32 (“it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom”) is based upon this and Daniel 7:22&27, which speaks of the kingdom being given to the saints of God. The remnant is not a new Israel rather it is the true Israel. The new covenant likewise is a renewed covenant rather than a discontinuous entirely separate “covenant. The true Israelite in the Old Testament was the one who had circumcised his heart as well as having been circumcised in the flesh (Rom. 2:28-29). Christ calls those true Israelites who imitated the faith of their father Abraham such as Nathanael. The true Israel remnant were always found in the Old Testament Israel (Rom. 9:6) but the promise of the gospel is that this remnant will be expanded entirely, recognised as the true Israel with unfaithful Israel cut off and the Gentiles brought in. The olive tree of the Church (Romans 11) remains the same, but the Gentiles have been “grafted in” and “made partakers”, with the true Israel of God.

Since the time of John the baptist, the kingdom was announced (Luke 16:16), Christ was coming to baptize Israel with spirit and fire (Matt 3:11-12): to baptize true Israel (the repentant remnant) with the Holy Spirit and unrepentant Israel with the fire of judgement. John the baptist was preaching in order to call out a repentant remnant, denying that merely genetic Israel (Abraham's genetic descendants) constituted the true Israel (Matt 3:9 & Luke 3:8). Josephus (a historian contemporary) tells us that John was "commanding the Jews...“to come together“ in Baptism". He was fulfilling Ezekiel 36:25 and Isaiah 52:15 amongst other prophecies, which is why he was thought to be claiming Messiahship or at least to be Elijah who would prepare Messiah's way (John 1:25).

Christ was building a new temple (John 2:19-210 on himself as the cornerstone (Isaiah 28:14-16, I Pet. 2:4-8). Christ calls his disciples and teaches them the true Law of Moses on a mount in a way corresponding to the giving of the law at Sinai. He reveals the true depth of the law - he becomes the new Moses as the greater Prophet (Mark 3:13&14, Matt 5:1ff. Acts 3:22; Deut 18:15-18). Christ chooses 12 from all of his disciples. They are the true representatives of Israel, when they sit down with Christ to the Last Supper that inaugurates the New Covenant in similarity to the Old Covenant covenant meal (Exod. 24:1-12 esp. v11, cp. Luke 22:14&29-30 & Matt 19:28.). The Transfiguration also mirrored Exodus 24 in the small group brought with Jesus to the mountain to to see the glory. The voice that spoke indicated the law was now being delivered to Israel through Christ, as Moses' presence confirmed. It was being delivered not through Moses as mediator, but Christ Himself.

Why does Christ gather 12 main disciples? Surely to represent Israel (12 tribes) and the remnant which is the true Israel (Luke 22:29-30) since judgement is to come upon the nation. The twelve were chosen for a reason, as instruments in God's hand so that the true vine of the true Israel would bring forth lasting fruit (John 15:16). The great complaint against Israel in the prophets was that they did not bring forth fruit, they were an empty vine (Isaiah 5). The twelve and the seventy (cp. Ex 24 – 70 elders) were brought (as the remnant) into the mystery of God's purposes (Mt 11:25; Luke 10:21) namely, the mystery of the kingdom of God (Mk 4:1; cp. Mt 13:16-17 and Luke 10:23-4).

Christ then sends out the twelve and the seventy. It is important to notice the significance of the seventy. These correspond to the Sanhedrin and to the seventy elders of Exodus 24. The sanhedrin numbered seventy one because the high priest was the head of it. The sanhedrin was the ultimate church court of Israel like a Synod or General Assembly it was the supreme court (2 Chron 19:8-9). Christ as high priest was issuing and commissioning a new sanhedrin for the true Israel. The sanhedrin was composed of priests, scribes or Levites and elders (mainly Pharisees). When we read of these together or some of them they are described as “scribes and elders or in the Jew's shorthand, simply “the Jews” - meaning the rulers of the Jews. Sometimes they are called either the “scribes” or “the elders” (Mk 7:1and 5). Christ calls his disciples sent forth “scribes” (Mt 13:52 and Mt 23:34). At a particular time of reformation, the elder-judges in the Old Testament were sent forth with authority to establish the law of God and teach it in all the cities of Israel (2 Chron 19:5-7). The seventy were appointed also to relieve the work of the twelve and to share it in the way that Moses shared it with the seventy elders (Exodus 18).

In Mark 6:30 a technical term is used - “apostle”. In Hebrew this was “sheliakh”, an officer appointed by the Sanhedrin to represent them – the sheliakh had legal authority, fully representing the council in an action, mission or place. An example of this is Saul of Tarsus who, as is not always realised, was converted from being a false apostle (sent by the Sanhedrin) to being a true apostle (sent by Christ) as well as being converted by grace. It was normal that these officers should be sent in at least two's when representing the senders in some activity. We see in Christ's sending out apostles to preach that he sent them out by two's, the apostles followed this pattern in the missionary activity recorded in Acts. The Mishnah states in this respect (as the Jewish book of practice) “he who is sent by a man is as he who sent him”. Thus Christ gives his authority to his disciples, saying “he that receiveth you, receiveth me” and “as the Father sent me, so send I you” (Mt 10:40; Jn 20:21; Luke 10:16). Paul also sees his role as the ambassador of Christ in this respect, that he stands in Christ's stead (2 Cor 5:20). The disciples were only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 10:6), in fulfiilment of Isaiah 40:9-11; 52:7&9). The apostles were given authority, full power over the evils of demons and diseases. The fact that Christ spoke through the disciples and the apostles (Eph 2:16-17) was attested by the miracles that he performed through them (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 2:3-4).

The Church is the true Israel only because Christ himself is the true Israel (Hos. 11:1; cf. Mt. 2:15). He is Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:16). Christ came born of a woman, born under law (Gal. 4:4), as the true Israel who would obey the commandments of God by perfectly keeping the covenant (Mt. 2:14-21) and suffer the curse for their covenant breaking (Gal. 3:13,14). Christ sent out the twelve with all authority before his ascension (cf. Matthew 28: 18-20). At the right hand of God, rules his people (Eph. 2:12-22; Col. 1:12-15; Heb. 2:14,15).

The fundamental principle of the Church is then that it is the true Israel as Paul insists (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6; Gal. 6:16; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:9-10; Jas. 1:1; Rom. 4:11-17; Gal. 3:7; Eph. 2:14ff; Philippians 3:3). Christ instituted a new Sanhedrin for the true Israel, a new government of his making and calling. When we consider the government of the Church therefore we must see that it will have a form continuous with that of the Old Testament. The Church was not a Jewish sect or a charismatic cult springing up separately in diverse and strange communities and forms wherever it appeared. It was nothing less than the true Israel to which all the prophets gave witness (Acts 7:38; Amos 9:11-12 cp. Acts 15:15-18; Acts 13:17; cf. Deuteronomy 7:7).

For an overview of the way in which Scripture shows that the Church is Israel now, read Charles D. Provan's booklet with that title. It is a collection of relevant Bible verses under various headings to demonstrate this truth.

The roots of Erastianism: Property disputes

Erastianism is the idea that there is no distinction between the church and state in a Christian state but that the head of the state is the visible head of the church also. Besides the Westminster Standards, George Gillespie showed convincingly in his writings that there were distinct ecclesiastical courts in the Old Testament which were not subject to the king. The other significant point that refutes Erastianism is that there can be only one head of the Church.

How did Erastianism begin?
Erastianism began after the time of Constantine and became established in the Byzantine empire. The church was controlled by the Emperor, a phenomenon known as “caesaro-papalism".

This position took a while to establish itself and met with some understandable resistance. It gained its foothold, however, through church splits and resulting property disputes. It was the Donatist schismatics who in 313 appealed to the emperor Constantine in a property dispute and asked him to turn the case over to the bishops of Gaul for determination. This was ironic because their leader Donatus had once himself said: “What has the Emperor to do with the Church?”

The emperor Constantine had a certain reluctance to be involved but turned the case over to the bishop of Rome Miltiades, instead and arranged the detail of who should attend. Miltiades reinforced the secularisation of the church by conducting the case according to Roman civil law and the outcome was not favourable to the Donatists.

The Donatists then complained once more to the emperor and Constantine summoned the Council of Arles. This was the first time that a civil ruler had taken the initiative in convening a church council. The Council ruled against Donatists and they appealed once more to the emperor. This time Constantine agreed to hear them himself. This was the most ominous step because it was not simply the state instructing the church to try the case but the state assuming the power of settling church issues. It meant of course, that the emperor had to enter into matters of doctrinal dispute

Perhaps realising how far things had gone the Synod of Antioch in 341 ruled that ‘direct recourse to the emperor is forbidden’. It was too late, however, and gradually the imperial power over the church became too much to resist. The Synod of Antioch had some experience of this. There had been something of a precedent before the time of Constantine when the Roman Empire was still heathen. It was in the case of the heretic Paul of Samosata. Paul taught that Jesus Christ was born a mere man, but that at his baptism he was infused with the divine Logos or Word of God.

In 269, the Synod of Antioch deposed Paul as bishop and elected Dominus as his successor. Despite being deposed, Paul refused to acknowledge this and continued to function as before and continued to occupy the bishop's house in Antioch. Paul held the civil office of Procurator ducenarius, and was protected by Zenobia, the Queen of Palmyra but when she was defeated in battle in 272 events changed. Appeal was made to Aurelian the Emperor who who ejected Paul of Samosata from the house handed the matter of who should occupy it over to the Bishops of Italy. It was an ominous step for Christians to appeal to a heathen Emperor because the basis upon which the emperor claimed his right to accept judicial appeal in a religious matter was as Pontifex Maximumus or Chief Priest of all cults or religions right. Aurelian was a pagan and later persecuted Christians.

There was discussion at various times as to how the situation could be managed and contained. It was considered by some that ecclesiastical courts' decisions, viz. of a final authoritative synod, must not be appealed to the emperor since such appeals gave the emperor important opportunities to interfere in church affairs. The flood gate once opened, however, was not easily held back.

The origins of Erastianism are instructive for this very reason. It may find a foothold even in a presbyterian nation and church that historically oppose it by the same means that we have noted above. For instance, the Free Church of Scotland constituted in 1843 in protest against Erastianism, state interference in the Church and the civil courts reviewing the decisions of Church courts. In 1900, the minority Free Church took the matter of determining which was the true Free Church to the civil courts in order to claim the material assets, particularly property, of the Free Church. Part of the reason that they remained within the Church after the Declaratory Act had been retained in its constitution was that the Constitutionalists had consulted eminent legal opinion about property in the winter 1892-3 in Scotland and England but it was not favourable to their retaining property unless Union came about. According to Free Church Counsel Mr Johnson in the 1904 case, it was a case of waiting till the best legal grounds for contesting the property came up - "We have certainly resisted, and when it comes to touch property, then is our opportunity". Ultimately, the case was successful at the House of Lords who seemed to be some toehold in determining the finer points of Calvinism. Yet the churches still required the State to establish a Royal Commission in order to determine how the property should be divided. To allow the State the right to review the civil consequences of the decisions of church courts appears to give it the role of a court of appeal from any decision of a church court, particularly in the light of the State's obsession with discrimination legislation.

These things work differently where there is an established connexion between Church and State so that the latter, in George Gillespie's words, “taketh care also for maintaining the ministers and schools, and supplieth the temporal necessities of God's servants”. In this case, however, the property and emoluments belong to the State and not the Church.

Gillespie's One hundred and eleven propositions concerning the ministry and government of the church defines clearly the role of Church and State and were approved by the Church of Scotland at its General Assembly. Gillespie says that the Scriptures forbid “the Christian magistrate to enter upon or usurp...the judicial dispensing of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to invade the church government” “but if any magistrate (which God forbid) should dare to arrogate to himself so much, and to enlarge his skirts so far, the church shall then straightway be constrained to complain justly, and cry out, that though the Pope is changed, yet popedom remaineth still”. Doctrinal determination of the principles of a church appears to involve the invasion of church government. As Gillespie goes on to say: “It is unlawful, moreover, to a Christian magistrate to withstand the practice and execution of ecclesiastical discipline (whether it be that which belongs to a particular church, or the matter be carried to a class or synod)”. Gillespie qualifies this to allow for absolute extraordinary emergencies when the Church has collapsed morally and in “the worst and most troublesome of times”, “when nothing almost is sound or whole”. There is also the qualification that civil laws are not to be disobeyed as far as obedience is consistent with obedience to God – likewise the Church has no business in “disturbing the peace and order of the commonwealth”.

The most telling proposition, however, is number 85.

“85. Yet ordinarily, and by common or known law and right in settled churches, if any man have recourse to the magistrate to complain, that, through abuse of ecclesiastical discipline, injury is done to him, or if any sentence of the pastors and elders of the church, whether concerning faith or discipline, do displease or seem unjust unto the magistrate himself, it is not for that cause lawful to draw those ecclesiastical causes to a civil tribunal, or to bring in a kind of political or civil popedom.”

Proposition 85 speaks of a situation where processes and procedures have not been followed correctly in that it speaks of where "through abuse of Ecclesiastick Discipline, injury is done". I would emphasise the word abuse, if Gillespie wished to refer to injury incurred by the proper or lawful exercise of church discipline he would not have needed to insert the word "abuse".

The same principle of no appeal beyond the supreme court of the church to the State is asserted by the Covenanter James Durham. "If all that [steps of Matt. 18] does not prevail, private persons may communicate it to other church officers; and no redress following, it is their duty to follow it before the competent superior judicatories. For Christ's directions, Tell the church, imports, and warrants the same.If it is asked, 'What further is to be done, if that fails?' ANSWER. We know no other public redress. Christ has left it there, and so may we also…That it is thus necessary for private persons to acquiesce in the church's determination, in manner as has been said, may appear from the unsettledness and confusion, both in private and public, which would otherwise follow. For either there must be a sisting in this determination of the church or there must be some other period to fix at, or there must be no fixing at all. Neither of the two last can be said, therefore etc. Not the last, to wit that there is no fixing at all; for so a particular person that was offended, would not know what was duty, or what to follow, and it would infer a defect in the Lord's ordinance in reference to his people's direction and peace in such cases, which is most absurd. If the second is said, viz. that there is some other thing to fix on for quieting of consciences in such a case, as to their exoneration beyond that public decision, we desire to know what that is which is called for, and by what rule we are to proceed in it?" p.116 James Durham, A Treatise Concerning Scandals.

It is for this reason that when one minister in the Reformed Church of Scotland in the 16th century appealed to the civil courts against his discipline, he was immediately deposed. The Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1843 describes this:

“The General Assembly having, in the year 1582, proceeded to inflict the censures of the Church upon Robert Montgomery, minister of Stirling, for seeking to force himself, under a presentation from the King, into the archbishopric of Glasgow, contrary to an act of the General Assembly discharging the office of Prelatic bishop in the Church, and for appealing to the secular tribunals against the infliction of Church censures by the Church Courts, and seeking to have these suspended and interdicted—and having deposed and excommunicated him, notwithstanding of an interdict pronounced by the Privy Council of Scotland, the then supreme secular court of the kingdom—and having at the same time declared it to be part of the subsisting discipline of the Church, that any ministers thereof who “should seek any way by the civil power to exempt and withdraw themselves from the jurisdiction of the Kirk, or procure, obtain, or use any letters or charges, etc., to impair, hurt, or stay the said jurisdiction, discipline, etc., or to make any appellation from the General Assembly to stop the discipline or order of the ecclesiastical policy or jurisdiction granted by God’s Word to the office-bearers within the said Kirk,” were liable to the highest censures of the Church; although their sentence of excommunication was declared by one of the Acts of Parliament of the year 1584, commonly called the “Black Acts,” to be void, yet ultimately the King and Privy Council abandoned their interference. Montgomery submitted to the Church Courts, and the statute of the twelfth Parliament of King James VI., already mentioned (1592, c. 116), cassed and annulled “all and whatsoever acts, laws, and statutes made at any time before the day and date thereof, against the liberty of the true Kirk, jurisdiction and discipline thereof, as the same is used and exercised within this realm;” since which enactment, no similar interference with the discipline and censures of the Church was ever attempted till the year 1841.”

Gillespie's following propositions clearly show his mind that Church courts are sufficient and there needs to be no appeal to the state.

87. Again, it hath been before showed, that to ecclesiastical evils ecclesiastical remedies are appointed and fitted, for the church is, no less than the commonwealth, through the grace of God, sufficient to itself in reference [pg 5-033] unto her own end, and as in the commonwealth, so in the church, the error of inferior judgments and assemblies, or their evil government, is to be corrected by superior judgments and assemblies, and so still by them of the same order, lest one order be confounded with another, or one government be intermingled with another government. What shall now the adversaries of ecclesiastical power object here, which those who admit not the yoke of the magistrate may not be ready, in like manner, to transfer against the civil judicatories and government of the commonwealth, seeing it happeneth sometimes that the commonwealth is no less ill governed than the church?

88. If any man shall prosecute the argument, and say that yet no remedy is here showed which may be applied to the injustice or error of a national synod, surely he stumbleth against the same stone, seeing he weigheth not the matter with an equal balance, for the same may, in like sort, fall back and be cast upon parliaments, or any supreme senate of a commonwealth, for who seeth not the judgment of the supreme civil senate to be nothing more infallible, yea, also, in matters of faith and ecclesiastical discipline, more apt and prone to error (as being less accustomed to sacred studies) than the judgment of the national synod? What medicines then, or what sovereign plasters shall be had, which may be fit for the curing and healing of the errors and miscarriages of the supreme magistrates and senate? The very like, and beside all this, other and more effectual medicines by which the errors of national synods may be healed, are possible to be had.

89. There wanteth not a divine medicine and sovereign balm in Gilead, for although the popish opinion of the infallibility of counsels be worthily rejected and exploded, yet it is not in vain that Christ hath promised he shall be present with an assembly which indeed and in truth meeteth in his name with such an assembly verily he useth to be present, by a spiritual aid and assistance of his own Spirit, to uphold the falling, or to raise up the fallen. Whence it is that divers times the errors of former synods are discovered and amended by the latter; sometimes, also, the second or afterthoughts of one and the same synod are the wiser and the better.

90. Furthermore, the line of ecclesiastical subordination is longer and further stretched than the line of civil subordination; for a national synod must be subordinate and subject to an universal synod in the manner aforesaid, whereas yet there is no oecumenical parliament or general civil court acknowledged, unto which the supreme civil senate in this or that nation should be subject. Finally, neither is the church altogether destitute of nearer remedies whether an universal council may be had or not.

the future of evangelicalism

Time magazine's photo essay on "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals" is distinguished by people that really aren't evangelical at all. If this defines evangelicalism, it is in serious trouble. Time's coverage of the 'new Calvinism' of Generation X may prompt some concerns too.  Someone has been blogging on their expectations of significant decline for evangelicalism over the next 10 years and "that within two generations of where we are now evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its current occupants". The blogger is eschatologically optimistic but not optimistic for evangelicalism.

He gives as his reasons:

• Evangelicals have lost the culture war and will be damagingly identified with this.
• "Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people the evangelical Christian faith in an orthodox form that can take root and survive the secular onslaught".
• "Evangelical churches have now passed into a three part chapter: 1) mega-churches that are consumer driven, 2) churches that are dying and 3) new churches that whose future is dependent on a large number of factors. I believe most of these new churches will fail, and the ones that do survive will not be able to continue evangelicalism at anything resembling its current influence."
• "Christian education has not produced a product that can hold the line in the rising tide of secularism."
• In a strongly secularist environment we can expect "evangelical ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive".
• "Much of this collapse will come in areas of the country where evangelicals imagine themselves strong. In actual fact, the historic loyalties of the Bible belt will soon be replaced by a de-church culture where religion has meaning as history, not as a vital reality. At the core of this collapse will be the inability to pass on, to our children, a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith".
• A major aspect of this collapse will happen because money will not be flowing towards evangelicalism in the same way as before.

What will be left as a result? 1) an evangelicalism greatly chastened in numbers, influence and resources and far from its doctrinal heritage including the gospel, 2) a remaining majority of Charismatic-Pentecostal Christians faced with the opportunity to reform or become unrecognizable, 3) an invigorated minority of evangelicals committed to theology and church renewal, 4) a marginalized emerging and mainline community and 5) an evangelicalized segment of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy 6) the death of fundamentalism 7) the death of large parachurch organisations. One blogger comments here .

 

This analysis must at some level owe a lot to Francis Schaeffer's book published in 1984, The Great Evangelical Disaster. The great evangelical disaster was "the failure of the evangelical world to stand for truth as truth. There is only one word for this -- namely accommodation: the evangelical church has accommodated to the world spirit of the age". It was a fairly to stand for Scripture (abandoning inerrancy) unequivocably and to stans against cultural decline. He wrote "we can expect the future to be a further disaster if the evangelical world does not take a stand for biblical truth and morality in the full spectrum of life". The following comment was incisive "It does seem to me that evangelical leaders, and every evangelical Christian, have a very special responsibility not to just go along with the "blue-jean syndrome" of not noticing that their attempts to be "with it" so often take the same forms as those who deny the existence or holiness of the living God. Accommodation leads to accommodation-which leads to accommodation..." It was a call to arms that was only partially heeded. Other subsequent writers such as David F Wells and Michael Horton have been more critical that evangelicalism is selling out completely on all of its historic principles.

How do you define evangelicalism? The historian David Bebbington gives it a largely doctrinal definition: crucicentrism [substitutionary atonement], conversionism, biblicism [the sole authority and inerrancy of the bible], and activism. This only fits in the loosest of senses that would blur any distinction with Barthian theology, for instance. 

D. G. Hart, in Deconstructing Evangelicalism argues that evangelicalism is "a minimalist account of the Christian faith" and "a concept that has obscured more of Christianity than it has revealed and should be abandoned as a separate religious identity". He also queries whether it can be properly defined and therefore really exists as a distinct movement. A very insightful series of articles 'Evangelical or Reformed' by Rev. H.M Cartwright in the Free Presbyterian Magazine covered this question, the first article is here (scroll down to p.213) with further articles in subsequent months .

 

We need those who have an understanding of the times. How do these observations fit within the total purpose of the history of redemption? Jonathan Edwards' book  which has that title shows how the millennium is the goal of redemptive history. It is the purpose towards which God in providence is directing history. 

He wrote "We have all reason to conclude from the Scriptures, that just before this work of God begins, it will be a very dark time with respect to the interests of religion in the world. It has been so before preceding glorious revivals of religion: when Christ came, it was an exceeding degenerate time among the Jews; and so it was a very dark time before the Reformation. And not only so, but it seems to be foretold in Scripture, that it shall be a time of but little religion, when Christ shall come to set up his kingdom in the world. Thus when Christ spake of his coming, to encourage his elect, who cry to him day and night, in Luke xviii. 8 he adds, "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Which seems to denote a great prevalency of infidelity just before Christ's coming to avenge his suffering church.—Though Christ's coming at the last judgment is not here to be excluded, yet there seems to be a special respect to his coming to deliver his church from their long-continued suffering, persecuted state, which is accomplished only at his coming at the destruction of Antichrist. Then will be accomplished the following passages, Rev. vi. 10. "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth." and Rev. xviii. 20. "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles, and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her."

It is now a very dark time with respect to the interests of religion, wherein there is but a little faith, and a great prevailing of infidelity on the earth. There is now a remarkable fulfilment of that in 2 Pet. iii. 3. "Knowing this, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts." And so Jude 17, 18. "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." Whether the times shall be any darker still, or how much darker, before the beginning of this glorious work of God, we cannot tell."

Lachlan Mackenzie of Lochcarron in his essay on the delusions that shall probably prevail prior to the millennium also spoke of a darkness so great that "it is to be feared that the Protestant Churches will be greatly eclipsed". "Darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people".

But to encourage you to pray for the hastening of the days when the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall cover the whole earth as the waters cover the sea, read Edwards on the millennium.

Love and Hatred

Love and hatred are not faults in themselves, it is what you hate or love that matters, so aince let the object of these affections be right, and then let thy affections be as bent as they can be. If you love God let affections be strong, if you hate his enemies then hate them with a perfect hatred. Many thinks that if they aince be changed by grace they must quit all their affections. No! No! Think not that.. There is no difference between the godly and the wicked in affections,
only anent their objects whether God or the World...it is by affection that God ties the heart to him and makes it quit all else. Above all affections look to your love and hatred for it is only these that brings about perfection. It is pitiful when people about to die say, they never did anyone wrong in their lives and never consider what they loved and hated all their lives.

Alexander Henderson

the case for a contemporary bible in English

What makes a contemporary English Bible? It is widely presumed that this is an easy and straightforward question to answer: a contemporary version can only mean the Bible put into modern idiom. The great variety of modern idiom versions that exists, however, tells us that even this conclusion is not that uncomplicated since there is significant difference of opinion over what modern English idiom is. Does it for instance, include “gender neutral” terms? Kenneth Barker, secretary of the NIV Committee aimed to justify the 'gender-neutral' revision of that version in terms of “shifts in English idiom”.

Another problem is the common assumption that contemporary idiom means that “a modern Bible should aim not to tax its readers’ linguistic or interpretative abilities on bit. If this aim is to be achieved then it seems likely that a new Bible will have to be produced for every generation - each one probably moving us further away from the original text, now that the initial break has been made”. (Gerald Hammond). Indeed some publishers of the modern versions have estimated that translation will need to be revised in the light of modern language every 25-50 years.

There is yet another problem. What constitutes contemporary idiom? Where is it best found? Many modern versions have selected one contemporary idiom above all others and forced the Bible to speak in a journalistic voice. Billy Graham's high praise for the Good News Bible was that it read like the newspaper. Yet this a problem in that: "Unlike the modern newspaper, the Bible was never meant to yield the fullness of its message to those who are only willing to expend the absolute minimum of effort necessary” (Robert P. Martin).

From the perspective of language study this obsession with the journalistic voice is very strange since it is clear that different varieties of English exist in different situations. These are called registers and they vary according to the setting and purpose of the interaction, the relationship of those speaking together, and whether the language is spoken or written. Prof. WH Stevenson explains: ‘…at any given time, there is more than one “English” in use. The language of the corner shop is not the language of the most “popular” journalist, and the language of the pulpit, even with the most modern of preachers installed, is different from either’. What is ‘the language of today’ that we hear so much glib reference to in Bible version discussion? The very concept makes very little sense in this context. Instead of speaking of contemporary English we need to be more accurate and to define the register of the English language that is in question.

Definitions of contemporary idiom can be remarkably elastic and subjective. One of the principal translators of the New English Bible, Prof. Kenneth Grayston said: ‘Modern English, it seems to me, is slack instead of taut, verbose and not concise, infested with this month’s cliché…it seems to me a repository for the bad habits of foreigners speaking English. This is how we must speak if people are to listen and grasp what we say’. The translators of the New English Bible believed they were reproducing modern idiom, but in fact it was coloured by their ‘preponderantly Anglican’ and ‘Oxford’ background. The translators often found themselves proposing some ‘very 1930ish upper middle class English idiom’: the translation was made in the 1960s.

Dr Anthony H Nichols has researched problems in contemporary cross-cultural translation. In some versions Western principles and thought forms seem to dominate. This making the Scriptures to be Westernised rather than reflective of biblical language and culture. Dr. Nichols’ highly important research investigates the influence of dynamic equivalence in several Far Eastern translations. The results are alarming: “ what emerged was the immense influence of the GNB [Good News Bible] on three important no-western versions”. It was concluded that “the renderings of the more traditional ‘formal-correspondence’ Indonesian versions were regularly more culturally appropriate [in comparison with the dynamic equivalent versions]”.

What is more culturally appropriate in our own society may likewise be far different than the manufacturers of the modern versions assume. Like the “traditional” formally equivalent Far Eastern versions we believe that the Authorised Version is actually more culturally appropriate than its recent rivals. It is the most accurate and the faithfulness of the Authorised Version is the very thing that has contributed to its character of being perennially contemporary and appropriate. It is worth reflecting upon the fact that it was no more accessible to the large number of working class converts in the 1920’s and 1930’s who loved it, than it is to us.

The AV, contrary to much misleading prejudice, is ‘clearly a form of Modern English’ (WH Stevenson). Its language is still part of English as currently used, indeed the English Bible has shaped the language. Granted that it is an early form of modern English but it is clear that it is as removed from Medieval English (Chaucer and Wycliffe) as 20th century English. What is required in a translation is that it should be accurate and faithful and that it should be in English. The AV has not only shaped the English language as a whole, it is the most significant influence upon ‘religious English’, the register appropriate for worship.

God’s Word through the AV still maintains a place in our society.In fact it is more contemporary than the so-called contemporary English versions. This is because we must properly define the term “contemporary” in relation to accurately and faithfully rendering the Scriptures and presenting them adequately. There are broader dimensions to the position, place and influence that a translation of the Bible holds and should hold. Contrary to the popular fallacy that there is no present point of contact with the idiom of the AV, it is firmly embedded in everday speech, especially in our proverbialisms. A website which investigates the origin and meaning of proverbial sayings notes: 'What raises that version above other versions of the Bible in terms of its linguistic impact is the fact that the language used has persisted into the present-day. Many of the phrase used are still commonplace. Here are some of the many phrases that originated in the Bible...' (go here for the list, which is only a selection).

There is a Bible that contains the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the 23rd Psalm as the man in the street knows them only. There is a Bible that carries a weight of authority and stirs a wealth of association for a significant proportion of our population. A Bible too exists that is quoted whenever the bible is quoted or alluded to, whether in popular books; academic seminars and conference papers; tabloids; broadsheets; and high, low, or middle-brow culture.

Think of a local church with a building that is situated prominently within a community, town, or village: a building with which all sections of the community are readily familiar and into which the majority have been at least once or so. Should that church abandon that building and commission plush, new premises right out in the middle of nowhere, remote from any houses whatsoever? The analogy with the Authorised Version and our community is very appropriate.

We are surely justified in concluding that rumours of the death of the Authorised Version have been greatly exaggerated and that it still deserves its justified title - The English Bible.

7 reasons why God permits sin

Samuel Rutherford gives these reasons in his A Sermon Preached before the Honourable House of Commons.
if permitting sin had not been,
1) The beauty of free grace and 'pardoning grace' had never been made obvious.
2) There had been no employment for 'the mercy of a soul-redeeming Jesus'.
3) We had not have had occasion to exalt 'the new Psalme of the Praise of a Redeemer'.
4) By this permission, the human creature of self-dependence is cried down, whereas God is exalted.
5) By this, the broken and humble heart is necessitated to kiss Christ, who binds up the broken hearted. 6) Then, we as poor pupils improve our dependence upon so kingly a Tutor.
7) Therefore, when clay triumphs over Angels and hell through the strength of Jesus Christ, 'Satan hath faire justice in open patent court'.

In his Catechism Rutherford writes just as concisely.

has God any hand in sin? A. He suffers men to sin, and punishes sin and
directs it to his own glory; but he neither allow, loves, nor commands sin'. Q.
But is not God the author of sin when he hardens men's hearts? Q. Not at all,
for God, as the ruler of the world and judge, leaves men to harden their own
heart, and so punishes sin by sin (Psa. 81:11,12; Rom. 1:24; 2Thess. 2:11,12)
as that no guilt cleaves to him'. ...Q. How can God then be free of sin if he
works in sin? A. The Lord can touch a serpent and not be stanged, (i.e.
stung), and as a good painter drawers black lines in the image to make the
white appear more beautiful, and the physician extracts good oil out of
poisonous herbs, and the musician makes the mistuned harp to send out a
pleasant sound, even so God in the hardening of men's heart does the part of
a judge justly and holily.

This is a complex area and the Reformer Ursinus is very helpful and careful in it:

The evils of guilt as far as they are such, that is, sins, have not the nature of that which is good. Hence God does not will them, neither does he tempt men to perform them, nor does he effect them or contribute thereto ; but he permits devils and men to do them, or does not prohibit them from committing them when he has the power to do so. Therefore these things do indeed also fall under the providence of God, but not as if they were done by him, but only permitted. The word permit is therefore not to be rejected, seeing that it is sometimes used in the scriptures.
...But we must have a correct understanding of the word lest we detract from God a considerable portion of the government of the world, and of human affairs. For this permission is not an indifferent contemplation or suspension of the providence and working of God as it respects the actions of the wicked, by which it comes to pass
that these actions do not depend so much upon some first cause, as upon the will of the creatures acting; but it is a withdrawal of divine grace by which God (whilst he accomplishes the decrees of his will through rational creatures) either does not make known to the creature acting what he himself wishes to be done, or he does not incline the will of the creature to render obedience, and to perform what is agreeable to his will. Yet he, nevertheless, in the meanwhile, controls and influences the creature so deserted and sinning as to accomplish what he has purposed.

He further defines a little what this withdrawal of divine grace is by which God,

1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto.
2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honor him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed. "If a dreamer of dreams shall arise among you, thou shalt not hearken unto him, for the Lord your God proveth you." "The Lord moved David against Israel to say, Go and number Israel and Judah. (Deut. 13:1,3; 2 Sam. 24:1.) Why did he afterwards punish David? That he might be led to repentence.
3. He nevertheless influences and controls those who are thus deserted, so as to accomplish through them his just judgments; for God accomplishes good things through evil instruments, no less than through those which are good. For as the work of God is not made better by the excellency of the instrument, so neither is it made worse by the evil character of the instrument. God wills [by permission] actions that are evil, but only in as far as they are punishments of the wicked. All good things are from God, All punishments are just and good. Therefore they are from God...

The Westminster Confession (6:1 also Larger Catechism Q19) declare that God 'permits' sin, but that it is not a 'bare permission'.(5:4) A 'bare permission' (such as Arminians believe) would make it an involuntary decision whereas it was possible not to permit it.

Turretin is characteristically concise: 'Two extremes are to he avoided. First, that of defect, when an otiose permission of sin is ascribed to God. Second, that of excess, when the causality of sin is ascribed to him. Between these extremes, the orthodox hold the mean, who contend that the providence of God extends to sin in such way that he does not involuntarily permit it, as the Pelagians say, nor actively cause it as the Libertines assert, but voluntarily ordains and controls it'.

Boston is characteristically rich: "God's providence is most holy. "The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works" (Psalm 145:17) Even though providence reach to and be conversant in sinful actions, yet it is pure; as the sun contracts no defilement, though it shine on a dunghill. For God is neither the physical nor moral cause of the evil of any action, more than he who rides on a lame horse is the cause of its halting. All the evil that is in sinful actions proceeds and flows from the wicked agent, as the stench of the dunghill does not proceed from the heat of the sun, but the corrupt matter contained in the dunghill."

Jonathan Edwards writes: "To permit the event of sin, or not to hinder it, implies, that the cause of defection is not in the permitter, but in the permitted; not m the governor, but the governed." What is very interesting about Edwards' views is that he believed that "the glory of the divine rectitude, towards the intelligent and moral part of the universe, considered as accountable, and to the full extent of its moral capabilities, could not be manifested without the permission of sin. The full exercise of equity must necessarily leave the moral system to its own tendencies and operations." Note the following: "Without the permission of sin, restoring benevolence, or the exercise of mercy, would have been impossible; and consequently the glory of that perfection, which can be fully displayed only by its exercise towards the miserable, would have been eternally concealed".

Finally, Witsius expresses it attractively in saying "it is peculiar to divine wisdom
and power not only to do good but much more, to make the evil devised by others, to answer a good and valuable end, and manage those things which appear to be evil to the greatest advantage".

But lest these thoughts should lead us to any smaller or weaker views of the exceeding sinfulness of sin itself as the greatest evil and our own responsibility for it, read The Absence of Sin in Present Day Religion.

The growth of love to Christ

Estimation produceth love, even the love of Christ; and love is a great favourite, and is much at court, and dwelleth constantly with the king. To be much with Christ, especially in secret, late and early, and to give much time to converse with Christ, speaketh much love; and the love of Christ is of the same largeness and quantity with grace, for grace and love keep proportion one with another.

I have emphasised the words in the last line as indicating the importance of love to Christ. It is a grace, if we are depending upon our works we have not the love of Christ in us, for it empties before it fills us. It is a grace of great fullness that is ever expanding to all eternity. Heaven is a world of love. Rutherford also writes "The love of Christ in its first rise, is a drop of dew that came out of the womb of the morning; the mother, in one night, brought forth an host, and innumerable millions of such babes, and covered the face of the earth with them. But this drop of dew groweth to a sea that swelleth up above hell and the grave, (Cant. 8:6,7); it is more than all the floods and seas of the earth, and floateth up to the heaven of heavens, and up, and in, it must be upon Christ. Ye see not Christ, yet ye love him, (1 Pet. 1:8). It overfloweth Christ, and taketh him, and ravisheth his heart. It is a strong chain that bindeth Christ, when the grave, sin, death, devils, could not bind him, (Cant. 4:9; Acts 2:24)."

Samuel Rutherford - Trial and Triumph of Faith

The importance of two or three

Commonly, the phrase "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst" (Matt. l8:20) is applied to small gatherings for worship or prayer. It does bear this application but the original context shows that Christ is speaking of a Church Court. It is important to not that this is not the irreducible minimum for a congregation, rather it is the irreducible minimum for church government and discipline. This is evident because Christ speaks of two or three agreeing together as a church court on earth regarding anything they would request, it would be done for them by His Father in heaven. "For where two or three [plural] are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst them [plural]."

Two or three is an important principle in Church Government and order as shared between the Old and New Testaments. This is the case in terms of the minimum number of witnesses (Matt. 18:15-16; Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15). In the case of prophets participating it is a maximum number (1 Cor. 14:27&29). In Matthew 18 the two or three refer to the elders gathered to judge the case (Deut. 19:17), they have a ministerial, delegated binding and loosing authority (v. 18). Therefore Samuel Rutherford says, referring to the size of a church court, that "two or three faithful ones in the Church of the Jews, no less than in the Christian Church were a true visible church, having the power of the keys". It is true that as George Gillespie notes, it is "a dictate of reason, to ask counsel of a greater number when the counsel of a few cannot resolve us, then reason, being ever like itself, will dictate so much to a congregation, that they ought to submit to the authority of a greater number when their own authority is not sufficient to end a controversy among them." Yet this is only where matters are unresolved. Noone can question or decline the authority of a church court on the basis of the number of its members.

As Rutherford puts it elsewhere, the size of a church court does not relate to its authority, "the authority of Synods consisting of six onely, differeth not in nature and essence, from a generall councell of the whole Catholike visible Church" (Due Right of Presbyteries, p.331). "Synods should take care that no man despise their Authority". On 20 December, 1560, the first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convened in Edinburgh, under the leadership of John Knox. Six ministers and 36 elders gathered to deliberate on and eventually to present for the approval of the Scottish Parliament the Book of Discipline. It was a small court for the nation but had all due authority.

There was a proposal after the time of the Scottish Reformation to have small Presbyteries — comprising "ane or twa," [one or two] "thrie or four" kirks — but this was never carried out. In 1581 the General Assembly considered a "forme how elderschips may be constitute of a certain number of parochines lyand together,"
and in this form all the parishes in Scotland were grouped under fifty Presbyteries,
"twenty to every Presbytery, or thereabouts." This form was modified but was the basis of the structure. Two or three is the quorum, however, for a presbytery. Three members of Presbytery form a quorum, two of them being ordained ministers.

Another significant number is 7, as in Acts 6. It is said that in many Patristic Churches there were approximately seven Congregations associated in each Presbytery., and then again seven such Presbyteries associated together in one Regional Synod (Dr FN Lee). Perhaps this was drawn from the seven churches of Asia. Although the Presbytery of Antioch had five Preaching Elders (Acts 13:1).

A small presbytery enables greater familiarity but it can also present challenges in providing assessors and dealing with matters of discipline and other difficult areas. The point is that size is not related to authority. As the Reformer Martin Bucer said; "the number of parishes in which such as meeting is convened is an extraneous circumstance, pertinent in no respect to the essence of the particular church"

experiential theology: union with Christ

The Dutch theologian Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711) is best known for
his four-volume work, The Christian's Reasonable Service (Reformation
Heritage Books; 1993; 4 vols.). This book reflects the three
dimensions of true religion: doctrine, duty and experience. I have
gathered some quotes that reflect this, particularly in relation to
union with Christ. The translator Bart Elshout describes it as
experiential as well as systematic theology. He says:

'I would define experiential theology as that theology which explains
how the doctrines of Scripture become an experiential reality in the
hearts and lives of believers. One could say that experiential
religion is doctrine experienced. It is unquestionably à Brakel's
intense desire that his exposition of the doctrines of Scripture would
lead to the experience of the reality of these doctrines. Once you
grasp this, you will observe how in the theological sections of his
chapters he lays the ground work for the experiential application. His
aim in "doing theology" is the edification of the believer. He does
this by describing what the experiential application of the expounded
doctrine should be, and by describing what it often is when believers
struggle to appropriate the precious truths of Scripture. In doing so,
he magnifies Christ and touches the heartstrings of every true
believer. Therefore, when reading The Christian's Reasonable Service
you will be both educated and edified. What a rare and unique
combination! While it looks like another Reformed systematic theology
it is actually more practical in nature and intended to provide
content for small group discussions as Christians gather to encourage
one another in the Christian life. It is one of the beautiful works of
the "Dutch Puritans."'

à Brakel quotations

"All true godliness proceeds from the knowledge of, and a believing
union with, the Lord Jesus. This generates love and all that proceeds
from love. Whatever does not proceed from this source cannot be called
godliness. Even though nature may give us an impression of God and
religion, it does not reveal this mystery. He who has only been
illuminated outwardly is also ignorant of the frame of heart which
proceeds from knowing Jesus (that is, as both God and man)."
(pp.512-513)

"Many know Jesus according to the letter, but not internally by the
illumination of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, such also have no love
for Him. They do desire Him as a servant to protect them from hell and
to help them get into heaven--of which they also have no correct
perceptions. Beyond that they have no use for Him. There is no
entering into covenant with Him, no surrendering to Him, no receiving
of Him by faith unto justification and sanctification, no heart-union,
and no exercising of fellowship with Him. They are neither acquainted
with His presence nor with His absence. They are satisfied if they are
but good church-members, partake of the Lord's Supper, live honestly,
and have the illusion that they will be saved. On that basis they
proceed--even though Jesus remains a stranger to them, remaining
outside of their heart and thoughts. Since you are acquainted with
human love, you will thus perceive that you have no love to Jesus,
whom you ought to love more vehemently than men. You may say that you
love Jesus. But then I ask you, "How is this evident? Is there esteem
and reverence for Him? Do you grieve and long for Him? Do you endeavor
to live in immediate union with Him? Is there a resemblance between
your nature and His? Are you obedient and do you keep His
commandments? Is there love for the most eminent among the godly? Is
there an aversion toward the unconverted, of whom we have dealt with
in the above, and of whom you yourself are convinced? If you consider
your love toward men, and apply this to love toward Christ, then you
must be convinced that you do not love Jesus--whatever good thought
you may also have concerning yourself" (III: 278-279).

"A temporal believer concerns himself only with the benefits and has
no interest in Christ Himself. Believers, however, have communion with
the Person of Jesus Christ, but many neither meditate upon nor closely
heed their exercises concerning Christ Himself. They err in this,
which is detrimental to the strength of their faith and impedes its
growth. Therefore we wish to exhort them to be more exercised
concerning the truth of belonging to each other, and the union and
communion with Jesus Himself. They will then better perceive the
unsearchable grace and goodness of God that such wretched and sinful
men may be so intimately united with the Son of God. Such reflection
will most wondrously set the heart aflame with love. It will
strengthen their resolve to put their trust in Jesus without fear. It
will give them strength and liberty to obtain everything from Him to
fulfill the desires of their soul, causing them to grow in Him, which
in turn will generate more light and joy. Therefore, faith, hope, and
love are mentioned in reference to the Person of Christ. Scripture
speaks of receiving Him, believing in Him, trusting in Him, living in
Him, loving Him, and hoping in Him" (2:91).

"By faith, hold fast to the fact that you are reconciled to and are a
partaker of Him and His benefits, even if you do not perceive and feel
this. This belonging to Him is not based on feeling. If the souls may
truly believe this and be exercised therewith, this will lead the soul
toward communion with Him" (2:96).

"1. Take note of how intimately the Lord Jesus is united to His elect.
They have been given to Him by the Father, in order that, as His
children, He would deliver, preserve, and lead them to felicity. Would
He then not exercise tender care of them, and be compassionate towards
them when they are in distress? They are His bride, children and
members. He has their very own nature - "for which cause He is not
ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2:11). When they are in misery
and sorrow, they weep and long for Him, and cry out to Him for help
and comfort. How can it be any different but that the Lord Jesus is
greatly moved to compassion, especially since He is experientially
acquainted with the feeling of their suffering?

2. God is not only the cause of spiritual life, but also the object of
its motions. God Himself is all the delight, pleasure, and joy of the
regenerate man. He cannot be without God. He wishes for and must enjoy
the light of God's countenance, peace with God, and love and communion
with God. By virtue of union with God he wishes to be united to His
will, and thus to hate and shun what He hates, and to find delight in
and in doing whatever God delights in and is pleasing to Him.

3. Believers on earth love Jesus, their hearts go out after Him, and
He is the focal point of the passions of their love. "Therefore do the
virgins love Thee" (Song of Sol. 1:3). The bride continually has the
word Beloved in her mouth. Just consider how each believer mourns when
Jesus is absent; how they long for His coming to them; and how
delighted they are when they may sweetly enjoy His fellowship. All
their asking, crying and weeping is for Jesus. In Jesus only they find
all their satisfaction".

"Jesus Himself delights in having communion with you" (2:93)...a
"sweetness and overflowing delight … Here they (Christians) find balm
for their sick souls, light to clear up their darkness, life for their
deadness, food and drink for their hunger and thirst, peace for their
troubled heart, blood to atone for their sins, the Spirit for their
sanctification, counsel when they are at their wit's end, strength for
their weakness, and a fullness of all for their manifold deficiencies"
(2:93,94).

Sifting Words

The best summary of Sandy Gair's life is in the article by Rev. Douglas Somerset on the Separatists here

The following account is told of him. One day while crossing the moor, he inquired of a stranger who crossed his path if he had any news. The stranger, unaware of his questioner’s identity, replied that Sandy Gair’s two sons had been drowned that morning. This was his intimation of the tragedy. Broken and crushed by the stroke, his answer was, referring to himself, "He has not yet received what he deserves."

Dr Kennedy, Dingwall writes:

'No one, able to appreciate talent, could listen to one of his addresses, without admiring the originality of his views, and the clear terseness of his diction. In apt illustration, and in scathing satire, few could excel him. Twice only did the writer ever hear him, but one of his sayings he can not forget. Speaking of the advantage possessed by the Christian over the worldly in the security of his portion, he said, "It was not much that Jacob took with him, when he left the house of Laban to return to his kindred, but amidst the little which he brought away, Laban lost his gods; but though Satan stripped Job, till he left not even his skin on him, the patriarch still could say, "I know that my Redeemer liveth." Speaking, on another occasion, of the very different estimates, of their respective services, formed by the Christian and the hypocrite, he said, "Of the offering accepted on Mount Carmel, the fire from heaven left only the ashes to Elijah; but, had the priests of Baal survived, they might have fed them selves fat on their rejected sacrifice."'

William Sinclair, Wick records in his diary November 26th 1846:
'Sandy Gair said many a sifting word if I could only record them. He said, "When Saul was at war with his enemies he made a vow that he would not eat till he gained the victory; but Jonathan ate of the honey and gained the victory. If we were eating of the honey of the promise we would get greater victories over our spiritual enemies, but we have more of the spirit of Saul than of Jonathan." He made also a good comparison between a bad watch and a bad heart as to how to repair them. "A man had a bad watch which would work now and stop next time, so he sent it to Inverness, but it was as bad as ever when it came back. He then tried it at Aberdeen and Edinburgh, but with no better speed. One day he opened it and discovered the maker's name and address on it. He at once sent it there and got it back in perfect order. Do this with your heart when none else will do, send it to the Maker."'

Gair once wrote to a theological student warning him to beware of the “great pot” out of which the sons of the prophets get their pottage, for there is “death in it” (2 Kings 4:40) which can only be cured by the “handful of meal”. Gair explained, “The pot is the college; the death in it is learning without grace, and the meal is the good food ground on Calvary between the millstones of law and justice, which can be gotten only by the hand of faith”.

In the book "Records of Grace in Sutherland", Rev. Donald Munro records the following incident about Gair:

'Sitting by the fireside at the end of the evening after family worship Angus Bailie of Strath Brora, to the surprise of other family members threw a fresh supply of peat on the fire. When his wife asked him the reason, he replied - "Oh I expect that before the peats are consumed, one of the Lord's people will come who may be in sore need of a good fire". A short time later, footsteps were heard outside and a distressed young man, soaked to the skin, entered. He was immediately recognised as the renowned Sandy Gair who, in extreme spiritual distress, had crossed Loch Brora! His needs, both physical and spiritual were attended to and would later recall, on more than one occasion, that the night spent in this home was one of the happiest he ever spent in his life.'

Household baptism in the Old Testament

Household baptism is a New Testament term and it may seem strange to associate it with the Old Testament. There are indeed five household (oikos) baptisms in the New Testament(Cornelius’, Acts 10:48; Lydia’s, Acts 16:15; the Philippian jailer’s, Acts 16:31; Crispus’, Acts 18:8; and Stephanus’, 1 Cor. 1:16). These five
household baptisms illustrate a principle seen throughout Scripture that, the obedience of the entire household is required as part of the obedience of the head. This is due to federal responsibility thus when the head of a household believed, baptism of his whole household followed.

As a note of interest at this point, these five baptisms are among only nine where baptism is specifically mentioned. In Acts there are 7: the Ethiopian eunuch, Simon Magus, Saul of Tarsus, Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and Crispus of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians there are 2: Gaius and Stephanas. Of these nine baptisms, there are two where no household was present: the Ethiopian eunuch and Saul of Tarsus. We are not informed about the households of two others: Simon Magus and Gaius. In the other five cases, the entire household was baptized. There is a clear principle that in every case where the apostles administered baptism to the head of a household, they also administered it to the entire household as well. For the Jews, the conversion and baptism of proselytes was on a household basis. In the case of the Philippian jailer the grammar emphasises the head of household’s action through singular verbs "rejoiced" and "believed" (Acts 16:34).

In addition to baptised households, there are also references to household
salvation: Zacchaeus’, Luke 19:6-10; the official’s, John 4:53; the 3,000 believers on Pentecost Sunday who were told that the promise of salvation was “for you and for your children,” Acts 2:38-39; and Onesiphorus’, 2 Tim. 1:16.

The solidarity of the household or posterity with the head is explicit in all the Old Testament covenants. It is made clear to Noah (Gen. 7:1; Heb. 11:7), to Abraham ("I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him", Gen. 18:19), to Jacob (Gen. 47:12), to Israel (Exod. 1:1), and to Rahab (Jos. 6:25). The word for household in Greek ,Oikos is used in the Septuagaint (the Greek translation of the OT) of Noah's family (Gen 7:19), of the covenant with Abraham and the circumcision and instruction of his household (Gen 17:13, 18:19), regarding the families in Passover (12:27), and David's descendants in the Davidic covenant (2Ch 21:7).

The household reference is frequently made:

- Gen 7:1 – Noah
- Gen 17:12-13, 23, 27 – Abraham
- Ex 12:27 – Passover
- Num 3:15 – Levites numbered according to household membership
- Deut 29:10-13 – Covenant renewal
- Joshua 24:15 – “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

There are also promises made to heads of households: Deut. 4:37-40; Psalm 78:4-7; 100:5; 102:28; 103:17-18; Isa. 44:3; 54:13; 59:21; 65:23; Jer. 32:38-39; 35:19; Ezek. 37:25; Zec. 10:6-7.

We should note, however, that there are also many instances in which God judges households in relation to the sin of the head of that household:
- Gen 20:17-18 – Abimilech
- Ex 20:5, 34:7 – Punishments for breaking the law
- Joshua 7:15, 24-25 – Achan
- 1 Sam 3:12-14 – Eli
- 2 Sam 12:10 – David

We should note also that neglect of the commandment of circumcision (the sign of household solidarity) incurred judgement (Gen. 17:14). The family is an organic unity, in which, if the head sins, all the parts of the organic unit are held to be sinful with it.


There is a particular ceremony in the Old Testament that parallels household baptism. It is the sprinkling of blood that was done at the time of the Exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh was willing to let the men go, but not the little ones (Ex. 10:7-11).

- It was a ceremony performed by the head of the household not for their own benefit but for the firstborn son who was liable to destruction as part of the nation of Egypt and under Pharaoh's dominion. The firstborn son did not do it for himself.
- It was a household action, lamb was to be taken by the head of the household and slain for the household who would partake of it. Noone feasted alone.
- It was a token or sign of the covenant which signified spiritual realities
- It was a family token.
- It distinguished the firstborn of Israel from the firstborn of Egypt (Ex 11:7).
- It solemnly signified that the firstborn of Israel belonged to a holy and ransomed nation.
- It signified the deliverance of Israel as houses (Ex 12:27) and their being gathered to serve and worship the Lord as a corporate unit.
- It was done in faith (Heb 11:28)
- It signified the blood of Christ and his merits and offered it to them(1 Cor 5:7)
It signified being under God's protection
It signified separation unto God from sin and the world. Not a hoof was to be left behind.
- It was the basis of instruction: Exod. 12:26 : "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, when he passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt; when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses."
-It was open to Gentiles. Exod. 12:48: "When a stranger will sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males ba circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land. One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
- It was a corporate action of the Church. The slaying of the lamb is ascribed to the "whole assembly of the congregation", because it was to be slain by their order, and in their name, for their use and in their presence (Ex 12:6).
- It signified deliverance from national judgement (as with the baptism of John the Baptist cp. 1 Cor.10.1 ff, exodus from Egypt; 1 Pet. 3.19-21, of the flood)
- It was like circumcision a sign of God's judgement if the stipulations of the covenant (including circumcision) were not kept. Thus a solemn judgement is also signified if baptised people do not enter into the reality of the blood of Christ and trample it under foot as an unholy thing.
- It was a seal of God's ownership.
- It was effected by sprinkling as with the purifications elsewhere described in Scripture (Exodus 24:1-8; Leviticus 14:4-7, 16, 49-53, 16:19; and Numbers 8:5-7,
19:18, 19; Hebrews 12:22-24; 1 Peter 1:2). The Old Covenant sprinkling of blood has been replaced by the New Covenant washing with water.
- It meant that the firstborn were sanctified and sacred to God
- It meant a general, external adoption of the nation to be God's firstborn (Exod 4:22)

what is now, and what was then

This poem by John Flavel written in 1691 was recorded by William Sinclair of Wick in his diary which is online here. William Sinclair was (I think) the father of Rev. James S. Sinclair.

"Then did the sunshine of Thy face,
And sweetest glimpses of Thy grace,
Like April showers and warming gleams,
Distil their dews, reflect their beams.
My dead affections then were green,
And hopeful buds were to be seen;
Oh joyful days, thrice happy state,
Each place was Bethel, heaven's gate.
What sweet discourse, what heavenly talk,
While daily I did with Thee walk;
Mine eyes o'erflow, my heart doth sink,
As oft upon those days I think.
For strangers now have come between
My God and me, and may be seen;
For what is now, and what was then,
'Tis just as if I were two men.
My fragrant branches blasted be,
No fruits like those now can I see;
Some canker worm lies at my root,
Which fades my leaves, destroys my fruit.
My soul is banished from Thy sight,
For this it mourneth day and night;
Yet why dost thou desponding lie?
Like Jonah, cast a backward eye,
That God who made the Spring at first,
When I was barren and accurst,
Can much more easily restore
My state to what it was before;
A word or smile on my poor soul
Would make it perfect, sound and whole."

Why are we here?

ALL that men have to know, may be comprised under these two heads,—What their end is; and What is the right, way to attain to that end. And all that we have to do, is by any means to seek to compass that end. These are the two cardinal points of a man’s knowledge and exercise: Quo et qua eundum est,—Whither to go, and what way to go. If there be a mistake in any of these fundamentals, all is wrong...Except you would walk at random, not knowing whither you go, or what you do, you must once establish this and fix it in your intention—What is the great end and purpose wherefore I am created, and sent into the world?

It is certainly the wrong establishing of this one thing that makes the most part of our motions either altogether irregular, or unprofitable, or destructive and hurtful. Therefore, as this point hath the first place in your catechism, so it ought to be first of all laid to heart, and pondered as the one necessary thing. ‘One thing is needful,’ says Christ, Luke 10.42; and if any thing be in a superlative degree needful, this is it. O that you would choose to consider it, as the necessity and weight of it require!

We have read two scriptures, which speak to the ultimate and chief end of man, which is the glorifying of God by all our actions and words and thoughts. ROM. 11.36. "Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever." And 1 COR. 10.31. "Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." In which we have these things of importance: 1. That God’s glory is the end of our being. 2. That God’s glory should be the end of our doing. And, 3. The ground of both these; because both being and doing are from him, therefore they ought to be both for him. He is the first cause of both, and therefore he ought to be the last end of both. ‘Of him, and through him, are all things;’ and therefore all things are also for him, and therefore all things should be done to him.

God is independent altogether, and self-sufficient. This is his royal prerogative, wherein he infinitely transcends all created perfection. He is of himself, and for himself; from no other, and for no other, ‘but of him, and for him, are all things.’ He is the fountain-head; you ought to follow the streams up to it, and then to rest, for you can go no farther. But the creature, even the most perfect work, besides God, it hath these two ingredients of limitation and imperfection in its bosom: it is from another, and for another. It hath its rise out of the fountain of God’s immense power and goodness, and it must run towards that again, till it empty all its faculties and excellencies into that same sea of goodness. Dependence is the proper notion of a created being,—dependence upon that infinite independent Being, as the first immediate cause, and the last immediate end. You see then that this principle is engraven in the very nature of man. It is as certain and evident that man is made for God’s glory, and for no other end, as that he is from God’s power, and from no other cause. Except men do violate their own conscience, and put out their own eyes—as the Gentiles did, Rom. 1.19,&c.—‘that which may be known’ of man’s chief end, ‘is manifest in them,’ so that all men are ‘without excuse.’

Now when we are speaking of the great end and purpose of our creation, we call to mind our lamentable and tragical fall from that blessed station we were constitute into. ‘All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God,’ Rom. 3.23. His being in the world was for that glory, and he is come short of that glory. O strange shortcoming! Short of all that he was ordained for! What is he now meet for? For what purpose is that chief of the works of God now! The salt, if it lose its saltness, is meet for nothing, for wherewithal shall it be seasoned? Mark 9.50. Even so, when man is rendered unfit for his proper end, he is meet for nothing, but to be cast out and trode upon; he is like a withered branch that must be cast into the fire, John 15.6. Some things, if they fail in one use, they are good for another; but the best things are not so,—Corruptio optimi, pessima. As the Lord speaks to the house of Israel, ‘Shall wood be taken of the vine tree to do any work?’ Even so the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Ezek. 15.2-6. If it yield not wine, it is good for nothing. So, if man do not glorify God,—if he fall from that,—he is meet for nothing, but to be cast into the fire of hell, and burnt for ever; he is for no use in the creation, but to be fuel to the fire of the Lord’s indignation.

But behold! the goodness of the Lord and his kindness and love hath ‘appeared toward man. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,’ ‘through Jesus Christ,’ Tit. 3.4-6. Our Lord Jesus, by whom all things were created, and for whom, would not let this excellent workmanship perish so, therefore he goes about the work of redemption,—a second creation more laborious and also more glorious than the first, that so he might glorify his Father and our Father. Thus the breach is made up; thus the unsavoury salt is seasoned; thus the withered branch is quickened again for that same fruit of praises and glorifying of God. This is the end of his second creation, as it was of the first: ‘We are his workmanship created to good works in Christ Jesus,’ Eph. 2.10. ‘This is the work of God, to believe on him whom he hath sent;’ ‘to set to our seal,’ and to give our testimony to all his attributes, John 6.29, and 3.33. We are ‘bought with a price,’ and therefore we ought to glorify him with our souls and bodies. He made us with a word, and that bound us; but now he has made us again, and paid a price for us, and so we are twice bound not to be our own but his, ‘and so to glorify him in our bodies and spirits,’ 1 Cor. 6.20. I beseech you, gather your spirits, call them home about the business. We once came short of our end,—God’s glory and our happiness; but know, that it is attainable again. We lost both; but both are found in Christ. Awake then and stir up your spirits, else it shall be double condemnation—when we have the offer of being restored to our former blessed condition—to love our present misery better. Once establish this point within your souls, and therefore ask, Why came I hither? To what purpose am I come into the world? If you do not ask it, what will you answer, when he asks you at your appearance before his tribunal? I beseech you, what will many of you say in that day when the Master returns and takes an account of your dispensation? You are sent into the world only for this business,—to serve the Lord. Now what will many of you answer? If you speak the truth (as then you must do it,—you cannot lie then!) you must say, "Lord, I spent my time in serving my own lusts; I was taken up with other businesses, and had no leisure; I was occupied in my calling," &c.

Hugh Binning summarised from here

The Vital Importance of the Westminster Standards

J.H. Thornwell spoke of his personal debt to the Westminster Standards (Confession and Catechisms): "I bless God, for that glorious summary of Christian doctrine contained in our noble Standards. It has cheered my soul in many a dark hour, and sustained me in many a desponding moment...[I know of] no uninspired production in any language, or of any denomination, that for richness of matter, soundness of doctrine, scriptural expression and edifying tendency can for a moment enter into competition with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms."

B.B Warfield stated that the Westminster Standards (Confession and Catechisms) 'embody the gospel of the grace of God with a carefulness, a purity, and an exactness never elsewhere achieved, and come to us as, historically, the final fixing in confessional language of the principles and teachings of evangelical religion'. He referred to 'how fully and genially they represent the consensus of Reformed doctrine in its most developed and most catholic form; how strictly they are held in every definition to the purity of the Biblical conceptions and enunciations of truth'.

'Open these standards where you will and you will not fail to feel the throb of an elevated and noble spiritual life pulsing through them. They are not merely a notably exact scientific statement of the elements of the gospel: they are, in the strictest sense of the words, the very embodiment of the gospel. They not only know what God is; they know God: and they make their readers know Him—know Him in His infinite majesty, in His exalted dominion, in His unlimited sovereignty, in the immutability of His purpose and His almighty power and universal providence, but know Him also in that strangest, most incomprehensible of all His perfections, the unfathomableness of His love. Their description of Him transcends the just limits of mere definition and swells into a paean of praise—praise to Him who is "most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." And how profound their knowledge is of the heart of man—its proneness to evil, its natural aversion to spiritual good, its slowness of response to spiritual influence, the deviousness of its path even under the leading of the Holy Ghost. But, above all, they know, with a fulness of apprehension which startles and instructs and blesses the reader, the ways of God with the errant souls of men—how He has condescended to open the way to them of having fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, how He has redeemed them unto Himself in the blood of His Son, and how He deals with them, as only a loving Father may, in disciplining and fitting them for the heavenly glory. Where elsewhere may we find more vitally set forth the whole circle of experience in the Christian life—what conversion is and how God operates in bringing the soul to knowledge of Him and faith in its Saviour, what are the joys of justifying grace and of adoption into the family of God, and what the horrors of those temporary lapses that lie in wait for unwary steps, and what the inconceivable tenderness of God’s gracious dealings with the stumbling and trembling spirit until He brings it safely home?'

They are 'historically speaking, the final crystallization of the very essence of evangelical religion—scientifically speaking, the richest and most precise and best guarded statement possessed by man, of all that enters into evangelical religion and of all that must be safeguarded if evangelical religion is to persist in the world—religiously speaking, the very expressed essence of vital religion. Surely blessed are the churches which feed upon this meat! Surely the very possession of Standards like these differentiates the fortunate churches which have inherited them as those best furnished for the word and work of the Christian proclamation and the Christian life. May God Almighty infuse their strength into our bones and their beauty into our flesh, and enable us to justify our inheritance by unfolding into life, in all its completeness and richness and divinity, the precious gospel which they have enfolded for us in their protecting envelope of sound words!'

The Westminster Standards are therefore well worth reading through in 2009 - the following is a calendar of readings in the Westminster Standards. There are various harmonies of the Westminster Standards - here is one of them. Listen to them here.

Subjects of Meditation for a Time of Trouble

1. Our frailty and entire dependence as creatures on the self-existent and infinitely glorious Jehovah.

2. Our awful inconceivable guilt as apostates from Him who made man in His own image, after His likeness; the entire depravity of our natures as fallen, and our personal actual transgressions by omission and commission, in youth and riper years, before we knew, or rather, were known of God, and since; and most particularly in sins against Christ, His Gospel, Spirit, and grace, etc.

3. The believing contemplation of Christ in His person, covenant engagements, mediatory work, all-sufficiency, grace, truth, and saving benefits.

4. The patience, long-suffering, and abundant grace of the Heavenly Father, as it has been so richly manifested in the Son of His love and in His dealings with us.

5. The shortness of time, the certainty of death, the vanity of the world, the solemnity of judgment, the preciousness of the mercy-seat, the necessity of entire sanctification.

6. The glory of the exalted Redeemer, the perpetuity of His intercession, the fidelity of His promises, His power to guide unto death and through it, the blessedness of those that are at home with Him in the mansions which He has gone to prepare, the unutterable blessedness, transport, and triumph which are stored up in the words of eternal life--”I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also.”

Excerpted from Rich Gleanings from Rabbi Duncan, Free Presbyterian Publications, 1984, pp. 396-397.

Holding Fast Christ's Name

thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith Revelation 2:12,13.

It is commended for holding fast His name, that is His truth, cause, and interest, yea, everything whereby He makes Himself known. Then

(1.) We must lay hold of Him by making peace with Him. "Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me." So unless ye be in Christ, ye cannot hold fast His name in a day of trial, temptation, and persecution. You must close with Him as JESUS, that is, as a Saviour to save you both from the guilt of sin and the power of sin. And also ye must close with Him, as CHRIST, that is, as He is anointed to be King, Priest, and Prophet to His people,

(2.) If you would hold fast His name, you must hold fast everyone of His truths, every part of His cause and interest We must quit with none of them, or any part of them, whatever it may cost us. Many will hold fast a part of His name. They will hold fast and suffer for some of His truths, but not for all. Some they will quit and not think them worth the suffering for. But if ye would hold fast His name, then ye must hold fast and suffer for all His truths, not quitting any of them.

(3.) If ye would hold fast His name, then ye must do it constantly. Ye must not think it enough to commend and suffer for the truths a while, and quit and deny the same afterwards; but that is not the way. If ye would hold fast His name, then ye must do it to the end.

from a lecture delivered by Alexander Shields at the Lowthers in Crawfordmoor, March 11, 1688

Real Challenges for 2009

9 days into 2009 how about some real reading challenges?

Read the New Testament right through in Greek here - although you may want to learn NT Greek first - here is a free option.

If you don't fancy Greek what about reading the Bible through in the Authorised Version? This Bible Reading Plan Generator is software allowing you to generate a plan for reading any books of the Bible you choose over any number of days you wish. If you didn't know you can listen to the whole Bible in a year at 10 minutes each day. Listen to/download mp3s here AV (British/Male Voice narrating).

Since 2009 is the anniversary of Calvin’s birth read the whole of the Institutes through here or could it be easier than this? You can also cheat by listening to it by mp3 here. Other good audio book mp3s are also on this site.

But remember that reading without prayer and practical application will not profit.

Countess of the Covenant

Anna, Countess of the Covenant by Mary McGrigor Birlinn Books pbk Price: £9.99

ISBN: 9781841586687

This book is a biography of Lady Anna Mackenzie, daughter of Lord Seaforth, first married to the Earl of Balcarres and later after his death married to Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll.

She lived during the tumultuous times of the Covenanting Revolution and the Restoration. She was not a 'Lady of the Covenant' in the same way as the godly wife of the 8th Earl of Argyll who was among the first Covenanting martyrs after the Restoration (see Donald Beaton's Ladies of the Covenant). While Royalist and not radical Covenanters, neither of her husbands could be termed malignants. They were firm Protestants and Presbyterians, however, and while weaker than the most resolute in defence of the Covenants, from their testimonies they appear to have had a firm hold on saving knowledge. Lord Balcarres was a great favourite of Charles II but does not appear to have been corrupted as a result and expressed a significant degree of assurance on his deathbed. He received one polite letter expressing differing opinions from Samuel Rutherford but was not among his close correspondents.

The 8th Earl of Argyll collided resolutely with James VII & II, while the latter was still Duke of York in relation to the Test Act and after a dramatic escape from execution was finally captured and executed as a martyr for the Protestant faith because he would not bow to the tyrannical abuses of James. His testimony is most moving and perhaps one of the most moving parts of the book.

Lady Anna was a strong figure who suffered many great griefs during the course in which Providence guided her life. As an exile, she became a governess to Prince William of Orange, later William III. She entertained kings and bargained with them. Her piety was much admired by Richard Baxter who dedicated several books to her. She suffered a lot through one of her daughters running away to become a Romanist nun, Richard Baxter sought to help her through this and seek to persuade the girl of her errors.

While not a religious biography intended to bring spiritual benefit - this book is a fascinating window into the personal lives of some of those who lived through the Covenanting times, particularly the firm faith of those not gathered among the Scots Worthies. The book builds upon the victorian biography of Lady Anna and uses research such as personal letters to fill out the picture in a very illuminating way.

Why December 25?

You won't find 25 December in the Bible. So where did it come from? Find out here. The article referred to is here.

Saving Knowledge - part two

Following on from a previous post on The Sum of Saving Knowledge.

Dickson's Friendship with Durham

Robert Wodrow records that David Dickson 'had a wonderful opinion of great and worthy Mr Durham … He said somewhat to this purpose of Mr Durham, that ‘He was like a great bottle full of excellent good wine that when it did go to come out it could not well come out… ‘ so Mr Durham had little expression [in preaching or writing] but much good and great matter. (Analecta, 3:10)

Defining the Gospel Offer

Thomas Boston refers to the teaching of the Sum of Saving Knowledge in relation to the universal offer of the gospel, specifically to the following section, 'Again, consider, that this general offer in substance is equivalent to a special offer made to every one in particular; as appeareth by the apostle’s making use of it, Acts 16:31. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. The reason of which offer is given, John 3:16.'

The Sum of Saving Knowledge also helpfully teaches that it is a hearty and free offer on God's part, speaking of offers of grace, sweet invitations, loving requests etc. This use of offer serves to interpret what the Westminster Standards mean when they speak of Christ and life being freely offered in the gospel. It does not merely mean to "present" or "exhibit":
'The Lord…Maketh open offer of Christ and his grace, by proclamation of a free and gracious market of righteousness and salvation…He inviteth all sinners, that for any reason stand at a distance from God, to come and take from him riches of grace, running in Christ like a river, to wash away sin, and to slocken wrath: ‘Come ye to the waters,’ saith he,'. 'But I (may the weak believer say) upon the loving request of God and Christ, made to me by the mouth of his ministers, have embraced the offer of perpetual reconciliation through Christ, and do purpose, by God’s grace, as a reconciled person, to strive against sin….' 'That is any man shall not be taken with the sweet invitation of God nor with the humble and loving request of God, made to him to be reconciled…'

The Gospel is presented in a covenant framework in the Sum of Saving Knowledge. C.G. M’Crie showed an animosity to this covenant language of market and bargain and a complete misunderstanding of its import:

…Federalism, as developed in the Sum, is objectionable in form and application. Detailed descriptions of redemption as a bargain entered into between the First and Second persons of the Trinity, in which conditions were laid down, promises held out, and pledges given; the reducing of salvation to a mercantile arrangement between God and the sinner, in which the latter signifies contentment to enter into covenant and the former intimates agreement to entertain a relation of grace, so that ever after the contented, contracting party can say, ‘Lord, let it be a bargain,’--such presentation have obviously a tendency to reduce the gospel of the grace of God to the level of a legal compact entered into between two independent and, so far as right or status is concerned, two equal parties. This blessedness of the mercy seat is in danger of being lost sight of in the bargaining of the market-place; the simple story of salvation is thrown into the crucible of the logic of schools and it emerges in the form of a syllogism. (Confessions, p. 72, quoted by Bell, 106)

As Durham clarifies it in one of his sermons: 'The gospel doth not, as it were, so much offer to make with you a bargain, as it offers you the benefit of a bargain already made, viz. with Christ.' Samuel Rutherford in the Covenant of Life Opened writes 'Gods bargaining with us depends not upon the equality between thing and thing, the work and the wage; But upon his own free pleasure of disposing of his own: And it is the froathinesse of our nature to judge the penny of Glory, that we get by labouring to be our own, whereas after the promise, and after we have fulfilled the condition, it is not ours, but Gods, and he calls it his own, and it is to be disposed on by the Lords free-grace. Friend, may not I do with mine own, what I please? Mat. 20.15.' 'The whole Gospel is the word of Grace, Acts. 20.32. Col. 1.6. the Bargaine a paction of Grace'. Rutherford consistently speaks of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son as a bargain. It is made clear in the Sum that we buy 'without money'. '"Come, buy without money," (saith he,) "come, eat:" that is, consent to have, and take unto you all saving graces; make the wares your own, possess them, and make use of all blessings in Christ; whatsoever maketh for your spiritual life and comfort, use and enjoy it freely, without paying any thing for it: "Come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price," saith he'.

Perilous Times

An extremely topical article on the moral state of the nation is to be found here under the above title. Here is an excerpt: 'John Owen affirms that one of the dangers of such times is that we are apt to have light thoughts of great sins and to countenance ourselves in lesser evils, seeing the greater abominations of other men. The spirit of the age can almost imperceptibly affect the Church of God and result in increasing conformity to the world, which in turn helps confirm the world in its ungodliness.'

These sentiments are found with other puritans. The New England Puritan Samuel Willard gives as a mark of perilous times, the appearance of sin in those with a profession of religion which goes without rebuke, but such men are in credit with the best. What sort of sins is Willard thinking of? He gives a few.
Sabbath breaking - 'where the strict observation of the Sabbath is lost, there the power of godliness is gone'. Contention and slander among the people of God. Frequenting public houses and the company of lewd and loose people. In brief not living soberly, righteously and godly in this present evil world.

Making Shipwreck of the Faith

We are not as familiar with the Early Fathers as the Reformers and Puritans were. This is to our disadvantage. The following description by Basil of Caesarea (c. 329-379), one of the great Cappadocian Early Fathers, is tremendously powerful and entirely appropriate as a description of the state of the Church in our own day.

To what then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is fought by men who cherish a
deadly hate against one another, of long experience in naval warfare, and eager for the fight.

Look, I beg you, at the picture thus raised before your eyes. See the rival fleets rushing in dread array to the attack. With a burst of uncontrollable fury they engage and fight it out. Fancy, if you like, the ships driven to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick darkness falls from the clouds and blackens all the scenes so that watchwords are indistinguishable in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost. To fill up the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with billows and whirled up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain pours down from the clouds and the terrible waves rise high.

From every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point, where both the fleets are
dashed one against the other. Of the combatants some are turning traitors; some are
deserting in the very thick of the fight; some have at one and the same moment to urge on
their boats, all beaten by the gale, and to advance against their assailants. Jealousy of
authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into parties which deal mutual death to one another. Think, besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all the sea, from howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf, from the yells of the combatants as they express their varying emotions in every kind of noise, so that not a word from admiral or pilot can be heard. The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness. Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their ship is actually settling down into the deep.
Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality. Did it not at
one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separation into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed from one of long standing and bitter strife to one of open warfare, then, as is well known, the war was split up in more ways than I can tell into many subdivisions, so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate hatred alike by common party spirit and individual suspicion. But what storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the Churches?

In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of
opinion has been shaken: everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken
down. We attack one another. We are overthrown by one another. If our enemy is not the
first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side. If a foeman is stricken and
falls, his fellow soldier tramples him down. There is at least this bond of union between us that we hate our common foes, but no sooner have the enemy gone by than we find enemies
in one another. And who could make a complete list of all the wrecks? Some have gone to
the bottom on the attack of the enemy, some through the unsuspected treachery of their
allies, some from the blundering of their own officers. We see, as it were, whole churches,
crews and all, dashed and shattered upon the sunken reefs of disingenuous heresy, while
others of the enemies of the Spirit of Salvation have seized the helm and made shipwreck of
the faith. And then the disturbances wrought by the princes of the world have caused the
downfall of the people with a violence unmatched by that of hurricane or whirlwind. The
luminaries of the world, which God set to give light to the souls of the people, have been
driven from their homes, and a darkness verily gloomy and disheartening has settled on the
Churches. The terror of universal ruin is already imminent, and yet their mutual rivalry is so unbounded as to blunt all sense of danger. Individual hatred is of more importance than the general and common warfare, for men by whom the immediate gratification of ambition is esteemed more highly than the rewards that await us in a time to come, prefer the glory of getting the better of their opponents to securing the common welfare of mankind. So all men alike, each as best he can, lift the hand of murder against one another. Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion, now in the direction of excess, now in that of defect. On the one hand are they who confound the Persons and are carried away into Judaism; on the other hand are they that, through the opposition of the natures, pass into heathenism. Between these opposite parties inspired Scripture is powerless to mediate; the traditions of the apostles cannot suggest terms of arbitration. Plain speaking is fatal to friendship, and disagreement in opinion all the ground that is wanted for a quarrel. No oaths of confederacy are so efficacious in keeping men true to sedition as their likeness in error.

Every one is a theologue though he have his soul branded with more spots than can be
counted. The result is that innovators find a plentiful supply of men ripe for faction, while self-appointed scions of the house of place-hunters reject the government of the Holy Spirit and divide the chief dignities of the Churches. The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself into high office.

The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered; the exhortations of those in authority are rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but, out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else.So, since no human voice is strong enough to be heard in such a disturbance, I reckon silence more profitable than speech, for if there is any truth in the words of the Preacher, "The words of wise men are heard in quiet,” in the present condition of things any discussion of them must be anything but becoming. I am moreover restrained by the Prophet’s saying, “Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time, for it is an evil time,” a time when some trip up their neighbour’s heels, some stamp on a man when he is down, and others clap their hands with joy, but there is not one to feel for the fallen and hold out a helping hand, although according to the ancient law he is not uncondemned, who passes by even his enemy’s beast of burden fallen under his load. This is not the state of things now. Why not? The love of many has waxed cold; brotherly concord is destroyed, the very name of unity is ignored, brotherly admonitions are heard no more, nowhere is there Christian pity, nowhere falls the tear of sympathy. Now there is no one to receive “the weak in faith,” but mutual hatred has blazed so high among fellow clansmen that they are more delighted at a neighbour’s fall than at their own success. Just as in a plague, men of the most regular lives suffer from the same sickness as the rest, because they catch the disease by communication with the infected, so nowadays by the evil rivalry which possesses our souls we are carried away to an emulation in wickedness, and are all of us each as bad as the others. Hence merciless and sour sit the judges of the erring; unfeeling and hostile are the critics of the well disposed. And to such a depth is this evil rooted among us that we have become more brutish than the brutes; they do at least herd with their fellows, but our most savage warfare is with our own people.

For all these reasons I ought to have kept silence, but I was drawn in the other direction
by love, which “seeketh not her own,” and desires to overcome every difficulty put in her
way by time and circumstance. I was taught too by the children at Babylon, that, when there
is no one to support the cause of true religion, we ought alone and all unaided to do our
duty. They from out of the midst of the flame lifted up their voices in hymns and praise to
God, reeking not of the host that set the truth at naught, but sufficient, three only that they were, with one another. Wherefore we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth. Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day. A further powerful incentive to my undertaking was the warm fervour of your “love unfeigned,” and the seriousness and taciturnity of your disposition; a guarantee that you would not publish what I was about to say to all the world,—not because it would not be worth making known, but to avoid casting pearls before swine. My task is now done. If you find what I have said satisfactory, let this make an end to our discussion of these matters. If you think any point requires further elucidation, pray do not hesitate to pursue the investigation with all diligence, and to add to your information by putting any uncontroversial question. Either through me or through others the Lord will grant full explanation on matters which have yet to be made clear, according to the knowledge supplied to the worthy by the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Communion as Mutual Communication

John Owen in Volume 2 of his Works enlarges upon the subject'Of Communion with God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost'. He defines 'communion is the mutual communication of such good things as wherein the persons holding that communion are delighted, bottomed upon some union between them.'

'Our communion, then, with God consisteth in his communication of himself unto us, with our returnal unto him of that which he requireth and accepteth, flowing from that unions which in Jesus Christ we have with him. And it is twofold: - 1. Perfect and complete, in the full fruition of his glory and total giving up of ourselves to him, resting in him as our utmost end; which we shall enjoy when we see him as he is; - and, 2. Initial and incomplete, in the first fruits and dawnings of that perfection which we have here in grace; which only I shall handle.'

While Owen stresses communion with each member of the Godhead, he also emphasises the role of Christ the Mediator in access to God and these communications.'In every thing wherein we are made partakers of the divine nature, there is a communication and receiving between God and us; so near are we unto him in Christ.'

'The Father will have him to have "in all things the pre- eminence," Col. 1: 18; "it pleased him that in him all fulness should dwell," verse 19; that "of his fulness we might receive, and grace for grace," John 1: 16. Though the love of the Father's purpose and good pleasure have its rise and foundation in his mere grace and will, yet the design of its accomplishment is only in Christ. All the fruits of it are first given to him; and it is in him only that they are dispensed to us. So that though the saints may, nay, do, see an infinite ocean of love unto them in the bosom of the Father, yet they are not to look for one drop from him but what comes through Christ. He is the only means of communications. Love in the Father is like honey in the flower; - it must be in the comb before it be for our use. Christ must extract and prepare this honey for us. He draws this water from the fountain through union and dispensation of fulness; - we by faith, from the wells of salvation that are
in him.'

'That which lies hid in Christ, and is revealed from him is full of love, sweetness, tenderness, kindness, grace. It is the Lord waiting to be gracious to sinners; waiting for an advantage to show love and kindness, for the most eminent endearing of a soul unto himself, Isa. xxx. 18...'

How do we cultivate this mutual communication? 'The way and means, then, on the part of the saints, whereby in Christ they enjoy communion with God, are all the spiritual and holy actings and outgoings of their souls in those graces, and by those ways, wherein, both the moral and instituted worship of God doth consist.'

Yet these return communications are all through Christ. 'Our returns are all in him, and by him also. And well is it with us that it is so. What lame and blind sacrifices should we otherwise present unto God! He bears the iniquity of our offerings, and he adds incense unto our prayers. Our love is fixed on the Father; but it is conveyed to him through the Son of his love. He is the only way for our
graces as well as our persons to go unto God; through him passeth all our desire, our delight, our complacency, our obedience'.

There are a few marks of this communion and mutual communication drawn from Song of Solomon chapter 2.

(1.) Sweetness."He brought me to the banqueting-house," 'The grace exhibited by Christ in his ordinances is refreshing, strengthening, comforting, and full of sweetness to the souls of the saints.'
(2.) Delight. "Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples; for I am sick of love." 'Upon the discovery of the excellency and sweetness of Christ in the banqueting-house, the soul is instantly overpowered, and cries out to be made partaker of the fulness of it.'
(3.) Safety. "His banner over me was love," 'The banner is an emblem of safety and protection, - a sign of the presence of an host...[there follows a phrase well worth committing to memory] All their protection is from his love; and they shall have all
the protection his love can give them.'
(4.) Comfort. Supportment and consolation, verse 6, "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand does embrace me." 'Now, "the hand under the head," is supportment, sustaining grace, in pressures and difficulties; and "the hand that does embrace," the hand upon the heart, is joy and consolation; - in both, Christ rejoicing, as the "bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride," Isa. 62: 5. Now, thus to lie in the arms of Christ's love, under a perpetual influence of supportment and
refreshment, is certainly to hold communion with him.'

What the duty of holding fast means

This post looks at the text that heads up this blog. Revelation 2:24-25 “I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.”

Undoubtedly we live in an evil day. What we have in these words from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ is valuable counsel for His Church in the midst of an evil day. “That which ye have already, hold fast”. To hold fast implies that when we make a sincere and open profession of the truth there will be significant opposition in our way and there will be great difficulties and even danger in fulfilling this duty.

Holding fast also implies that in an evil day our main responsibility and duty is to retain and maintain the heritage or deposit of truth with which we have been entrusted: “I will put none other burden upon you”. “Hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is our basic duty. It may take all of our energy just to swim against the high waves of opposition and iniquity, even just to hold our ground. The man who slackens to attend to anything else while swimming against the tide will never succeed in either task by which his attention is divided.

Christ gives us “none other burden”, we are not to take additional burdens from anyone else. Men love to add burdens, the Pharisees piled duties upon the people which blinded them to the real necessities of their responsibility towards God. “I have spoken to them the great things of my law, but they were accounted as a strange thing”. The apostolic Church could say of their synodical decrees “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things’ (Acts 15:28).

In a day of small things men like to add new burdens in the Church of God. They bring in inventions of their own, innovations in the worship of God which are neither commanded nor necessary. These are the burdens of men and they hinder rather than help us in holding fast. It is gross disobedience to “teach for doctrines the commandments of men”. Others will remove from the testimony and water down the whole counsel of God in order to make the truth more palatable to a rebellious age. This too is forbidden. We are to maintain the whole truth and nothing but the truth: “that which ye have already, hold fast”. “Earnestly contend for the saints once delivered to the saints”.

Men also like to bind burdens on the people of God which will detract from a careful and holy profession of Christ. There were trends in the Church in Thyatira which encouraged walking closely with the world, conforming in certain areas to whatever was required in the trade guilds such as eating in the temples of idols. No doubt there were those who could justify it from the perspective of building bridges with the world but the truth is, as in our own day, that those who advocate running to the same places of sinful pleasure with the world are not extending the influence of the Church in the world but rather that of the world in the Church. Such are seeking to weaken the grip of the Christian and even wrestle out of their grasp the burden that Christ has given to them. In the natural world we often see a bird find a morsel of food, no sooner than he can make away with it in his beak he is pursued by another and then by several birds harrying and chasing to see if they can make him drop his prized meal. So it is with the Christian, no sooner does he take up a profession of the Saviour and the world, the flesh and the devil are all upon him to see if they can make him lose that which he must hold fast.

What we must hold fast
We must hold fast the full deposit of truth and sound words as it has been once delivered in the Scriptures. This is emphasised throughout the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

We must not seek to hold merely the bare minimum; we have not been called to reduce the burden for our own ease. The Church must hold to all that it has received. If we do not maintain our heritage what deposit of truth will there be for future generations? We must seek to hold fast in order to pass the deposit of truth on to the succeeding generation, that is truly guarding or preserving it. That is truly holding fast.

The Church must be agreed on the confession that it is collectively holding fast (Hebrew 10:23 & Philippians 3:16) hence the value of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms which are accurate summaries of the truth. Hence also the value of subscribing all of these truths and professing them to be our own personal confession, ‘holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience’. There is a sacred deposit of truth, the form of sound words. This must be maintained and asserted at all costs. Many believe that the old truths are outworn and must give place to new ideas. They believe that we can improve on what we have received. They believe that we must lower the biblical standard so that we can arrive at something more acceptable to a greater number of people. Needless to say, this is not holding fast the truth.

One vital way of holding fast in this connection is the instruction of the young within the Church. They must receive the knowledge of the truth. A great encouragement in this work is Isaiah 59:21: “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever”. This promise guarantees the continuance of a profession of the truth but it does not thereby take away our responsibility to instruct our seed. That responsibility is enjoined in Deuteronomy 29:29 “those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law”. This is a solemn duty and privilege. Fathers, elders, ministers must be vitally concerned that the children of the visible Church are immersed in the truth. (Deut 6:1)

God willing, we may be able to look at how we must hold fast in a future post.

Persecution of the Bible

An article recently published on the Persecution of the Bible. It looks at the persecution of the Scriptures at the time of the Reformation, those who were burnt at the stake for possessing them or translating them and how this persecution continues in our own day.

Why are ministers subject to so many trials?

Luther said that that it is prayer, meditation, and temptation that contribute to make a theologian or minister. Trials, testings and temptation have a key role in divine providence. William Cunningham in his Theological Lectures is the best expositor of what Luther was emphasising in this phrase, see here and here.

"Luther places prayer first, and this was nothing more than is justly due to its paramount importance; it is the imperative and primary duty of all who desire to become acquainted with theology, and qualified for the office of a minister of the gospel, to abound in prayer and supplication. It is quite true that men without piety and without prayer may read many theological books, that God may uphold and sustain them in the ordinary exercise of their faculties when directed to these objects, as when directed to any others, and that they may thus acquire a large measure of acquaintance with theological topics, and be able to discuss them and dispute about them. It has often been remarked, and the remark is undoubtedly true, that many men have written ably and convincingly in defence of the truth of the Christian revelation, in opposition to the attacks of infidels, who never understood or comprehended the leading truths contained in the revelation which they proved to have come from God, and who of course derived no real permanent benefit from the revelation which God had given them.

You can have no thorough and intimate acquaintance with divine truth, and especially you will be very ill fitted to explain and apply it for the benefit of others, unless you have had some practice in actually bringing it to bear upon the resistance of those temptations with which all believers are assailed in their journey towards Zion. All the principal truths revealed in Scripture are intended to be instrumental in leading men—those to whom they are made known —to receive Christ Jesus the Lord, and thereafter to walk in him, in opposition to all the obstacles which the devil, the world, and the flesh may interpose. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, and is continually to be employed in the spiritual warfare; and the man who has not had the benefit of temptation in the sense in which we have explained it, is like one who has learned the use of the sword only from written instructions, without having tried to handle or to wield it, and who, of course, is still very unfit for defending himself against the assault of enemies, and still more unfit for instructing others in the art of self-defence.

The whole doctrines of God’s word have a practical tendency; they have all been revealed to us for practical objects, and they should be all employed for producing practical results...This process of actually applying the word of God and the doctrines which it contains to their great practical purpose in the formation of character and in the regulation of conduct, according to the actual circumstances in which men are in providence placed and the temptations they are called upon to encounter, produces a clear, impressive, experimental acquaintance with divine truth, which cannot be acquired in any other way, and which peculiarly fits them for communicating clear and impressive conceptions of them to others; and it is held as a maxim applicable to all branches of knowledge, that an acquaintance with any subject which qualifies and entitles a man to become an instructor of others, must be thorough and extensive, such as to give him the clearest, fullest and most impressive conception of it himself...Hence it is not uncommon to meet with persons who have not read much, and who have had but little mental cultivation, but who have been long in the habit of applying the word of God and the doctrines of the gospel to the object of being enabled to resist temptation and be directed in difficulties, to be comforted in trials, and to be guided and encouraged in their spiritual progress, and who, by the study of the Bible, and by this process of practically applying it, have acquired an intimate and thorough knowledge of the word of God and of Christian truth, have attained to a clearness of conception on those subjects, and hold their views with a firmness of grasp which many book-learned theologians have never reached, and which all the ingenuity and sophistry of error cannot diminish or impair.

This is a process which ought to be ever going on, and which will certainly not impede but greatly promote your more formal studies in theology. As private Christians, you are bound to be continually resisting temptation, mortifying sin, and growing in grace; and by carrying on this process through the unceasing application of the word of God and divine truth, and by the reflex act of observing the operations and affections of your own mind while the work of bringing divine truth to bear upon it is going on, you will undoubtedly acquire much real practical available knowledge of the word of God and of the truths which it was intended to unfold, and this knowledge is of essential importance to all who are allowed to be put in trust with the gospel. Divine truth is then only applied to its right purpose when it is employed in this way, then alone is it fully seen in its proper light and in its true character, and no one therefore can be regarded as possessed of a full and competent knowledge of it unless he has seen and watched the process of its being subjected to such experiments.

It is your imperative duty, in accordance with the injunction which Paul gave to Timothy, to flee youthful lusts, which war against the soul, to be avoiding every appearance of evil, to be even already enduring hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, i.e. to be mortifying pride and ambition, self-confidence, self-conceit, envy, and worldliness, and to be cultivating and cherishing in your souls all the fruits of the Spirit. In this work you will have temptations to resist and difficulties to encounter. You must employ the whole armour of God, especially the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit, i.e., under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you are to be ever employing the word of God and the truths which it unfolds; and by carrying on this process faithfully and conscientiously, and by reflecting on its nature, its manifestations, and its results, you will not only grow in grace and in meetness for heaven, but you will acquire a much more thorough insight into the word of God and the truths of Scripture, and be much more fully prepared than otherwise you could have been for wielding the sword of the Spirit for the conversion of sinners and the edification of Christ’s body.

The place of the law in the gospel

“The law of God has its place in the book, and its use in the work of God. ‘By the law is the knowledge of sin’; and the Spirit, who convinces of sin, uses it in that department of His work. A due regard to the glory of God demands that it be so used. Sinners are not to be saved on a misunderstanding as to what they are, and as to what they merit. They must know Him against whom they have sinned. They must know what is justly due to Him from them as His creatures. They must be made acquainted with their iniquity as well as guilt, as sinners. And through the coming of the commandment sin must ‘revive’ in their consciousness, so that they know that they are desperately wicked, as surely as that their persons are condemned to die. Without this they can have no conception of gospel grace. Any hope attained to without this, can only be based on a misunderstanding, and must involve dishonor to God. God is not to be conceived of as one who has to study man’s convenience only, instead of supremely consulting his own glory. It should be an aim of preaching, therefore, to bring sinners to plead guilty before God; to feel themselves, in excuseless guilt, shut up to the sovereign mercy of Him against whom they have sinned. The attainment of this may be the result of a moment’s working of the power of God, or it may be reached only after a protracted process; but to this all must come who are reconciled to God.” -James Begg

1 Corinthians 13 and the Person of Christ

There is a recommendation of from Andrew Bonar’s book The Person of Christ and an extract here. This book is essential reading (here). It has some excellent quotations from the Puritans to back up its main point: that the Person of Christ is All in All for Christian Life, Faith and Experience.

“Those Divines who in their Catechetical Systems have made the formal object of Faith to be the Promise, rather than The Person of Christ, have failed in their expressions, if not in their intentions." - SPURSTOW on Rom. vi. 1. (Westminster Divine)

"Faith does not marry the soul to the portion, benefits, and privileges of Christ, but to Christ Himself. I don't say that the soul may not have an eye to these, and a respect to these in closing with Christ; yea, usually these are the first things that faith has in its eye. But the soul does, and must go higher; he must look at and pitch upon The Person of Christ, or his faith is not so right and complete as it ought to be. It is The Person of Christ that is the great fountain of all grace and of all manifestations of God to us; and faith accordingly does close with His Person." - PEARSE's Best Match, p. 160.

An exceptional part is where Bonar shows how Christ fulfils 1 Corinthians 13 to the utmost.

In this same way true and steady looking to Christ's Person would, by the Spirit's teaching, lead us into the experience of that "charity" which is described in 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 5, 6, 7. It is said to have these fourteen qualities, each one of which is best learned by beholding it in Christ, the original.
1. "Charity suffereth long." Where was this love illustrated if not in our Lord when He refused to bring down fire on the rejecters of His grace - stretched out His hands all day to rebels - bore mockery, blasphemy, wrong, the scourge, the crown of thorns, the reed, the blindfolding napkin, and the cross itself?
2. Charity is "kind" And who so truly kind as Jesus, crying with loud voice, "It is finished," and bringing us life in the moment of His own death - proclaiming the sweetest news with the vinegar at His lips! When was Joseph so kind to his brethren? Who ever so heaped coals of fire upon an enemy's head?
3. If ever we are to learn the love that "envieth not," we must see it in Him who desired nought for Himself, but disinterestedly and unceasingly sought to make our condition better, happier, greater. If our Priest, who wore the robe without a seam, had worn the priestly mitre on His brow, on it would have been written, "More blessed to give than to receive." He interfered with none of our comforts, not even in thought: it was only with our miseries. Let us drink in His unenvious, unselfish love, leaving our fellow-men all the true good they have, anxious only to make them have as much as ourselves.
4. Looking to His Person again, we see "charity vaunteth not itself." In Him is no ostentation, no parade of His doings. We read all the gospels through, and never find His love put itself forward for show. He does not clothe the naked and tell that He has done it; or relieve a Lazarus, and then remind the man that He has done him a favour; or heal, and proclaim His rare skill. Even His redeeming love is rather set within our view in His actions and agonies, as in so many wells whence we may draw, than pressed on us in words. Nor did He upbraid, or taunt, or shout haughty triumph over a soul subdued and forgiven - so little of parade had He. His is a Father's love to a prodigal son, too glad to gain the opportunity of pouring out itself on its object. Where shall we learn unostentatious love, if not here?
5. Or are we to learn the love that "is not puffed up " - that has no inward self-gratulation, no self-complacent thought of its own magnanimity in the deed so kindly done? It is to be learned surely by looking to Him who was satisfied in gaining His gracious object, in finding scope for love. No look or tone of His ever made His benefactions disagreeable to those who received them; for His was a charity that despised none, being the great love of God (Job xxxvi. 5). If we will learn holy love to others, let us learn it at Christ's holy love to us; as painters take for models the masterpieces of the best artists and copy them line by line.
6. Behold His love, and see how charity "doth not behave itself unseemly." You see a delicate propriety and a fine attention to the feelings in Christ's dealings of love. No rudeness, no harshness, no indiscretion; nothing mean, nothing unpolite; time, place, and persons were all consistently and tenderly considered. Even in this, the Righteous Servant "dealt prudently." With what tender delicacy, and yet determined love, did He deal with the woman of Samaria, till at last He had withdrawn the veil and confronted her conscience with her five husbands and the one that bore that name still! Even to Judas, in the hour of dark treachery, love could say, "Friend, wherefore art thou come ?" Never was there extravagant demonstration; never the shadow of affectation. There is seemly love to be learned in its perfection here, but only here, only in Jesus Himself.
7. And need we dwell on the charity "that seeketh not her own"? In the life and death of Him, who "was servant of all," we see this love to the full - the seeking love of God - the love that sought us and ours.
8. The same love is seen "not easily provoked." See it personified in Him who stands there and groans over the city, "Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together!" (Matt. xxiv. 37). No bitter wrongs ever drew forth a hasty word, or angry look, or revengeful blow. They spat in His face, they plucked off His hair, they smote Him with the palms of their hand, they put on the purple robe - but it drew forth only love.
9. His love was charity that "thinketh no evil" - that never had a passing thought of injuring its worst foes, nor imagined them worse than they showed themselves to be. His were thoughts of peace, and not of evil, towards the men that crucified Him. "If thou hadst known, even thou!" (Luke xix. 42).
10. It is at His side we see and learn "love rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." The good of those whom He loved He sought not to advance by any unholy gratification. His love was such as felt grieved at seeing its objects seeking happiness in ways not good and true. It had no joy in seeing iniquity anywhere, far less seeing it have place in the hearts of friends, however pleasing and fascinating that iniquity might be. The truth was what His love rejoiced in. Hence His love led him to protest and war against sinful pleasures and pursuits: for His love was no Eli-like fondness. It was love that would not give to those whom it embraced a cup in which one drop of gall was mingled, however much they thirsted. Where else shall we learn charity like this?
11. And then in Him we see love which "beareth all things " - endures trouble for others, and takes on itself the task of covering from view what is wrong.
12. This love, too, is love that" believeth all things." Yes, His love was a love ever ready to confide in its objects, ready to trust Matthew as soon as he was called, making him an Apostle, and then an Evangelist - ready to trust Peter, after his fall, bidding him "feed His sheep " - not suspicious and distrustful. Oh, to learn from Him such generous love ! Surely it is well for us to keep much company with Him in whom it dwells.
13. His love "hoped all things." It was like the love of a friend, who, sitting by the death-bed of one whom he loves, hopes on still, even when all physicians have given up hope - hopes because he loves so much and wishes what he hopes for. Such was the love of Jesus; not easily giving up its object - not soon cutting down its barren fig-trees (Luke xiii. 8). More of His love would make our life more perseveringly devoted to the good of others, however slight were the symptoms of success. And it is this we need in our day! And once more:
14. His, indeed, was the charity that "endured all things," which did not faint in its pursuit, nor was baffled by difficulties. "Many waters could not quench His love, nor could the floods drown it." Oh, to drink in this love - this holy charity! finding it all in the Saviour's Person.
Such was the portrait an Apostle drew,
The bright original was one he knew;
Heaven held his hand - the likeness must be true (COWPER).

Here is a table of contents

CHAPTER I
THE PERSON OF CHRIST IS THE ESSENCE OF THE GLAD TIDINGS

CHAPTER II
THE GOSPEL, FROM THE FALL TO THE DAY OF THE APOSTLES,
WAS FOUND IN THE PERSON OF THE SAVIOUR

CHAPTER III
THE HELP AFFORDED BY CHRIST'S PERSON TO A SOUL
SEEKING TO KNOW SIN AND THE APPLICATION OF SALVATION

CHAPTER IV
HOW LOOKING TO THE PERSON OF CHRIST TENDS TO PROMOTE
THE PEACE THAT PASSES UNDERSTANDING

CHAPTER V
HOW LOOKING TO THE PERSON TENDS TO ADVANCE HOLINESS IN THE SOUL

CHAPTER VI
HOW THIS LOOKING TO THE PERSON AFFECTS OUR VIEWS OF DEATH,
AND OUR HOPE OF THE LORD'S SECOND COMING

The antitype: Bitter herbs and unleavened bread

There is an excellent resource at www.puritanlibrary.com. This indexes puritan resources available on Google Books. The whole works of Ussher, Isaac Ambrose and the most well-known puritans are here together with links to dedicated websites and scholars.
One of the most interesting resources to me is the A Treatise of the Institution, Right Administration and Receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: Delivered in XX Sermons at St. Laurence-Jury, London by the Westminster Divine Richard Vines. This was popular with people in Scotland in the eighteenth century particularly at the Cambuslang revival.

It appears that a part of the treatise was lost but in Providence then restored to the author and so was able to be printed. Vines begins by demonstrating how Christ is the anti-type of the paschal lamb and the connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper. "The Apostle interprets leven, malice and wickedness, unlevened bread, fincerity and truth, I Cor. 5. 8. and so it teaches us, how Christ is to be received by us, and what manner of perfons they must be that apply and receive Jesus Christ. They must remember their bondage under fin, not with delight, but bitterness, and feel the sour taste of their former ways, as sinners contrite and broken bitter herbs are good sauce for the Paschal Lamb sin felt sets an edge on the stomach as Vinegar. Chrift relishes well to such a soul; when thou comest to eat his Supper, bring thy own sauce with thee, bitter herbs, and refresh on thy self the memory of thy old ways and former lufts; that's the sauce, the bread is unlevened bread, you cannot eat the Lamb and leven together: a secure hypocrite, a filthy swine not purged from sin, to think to have Christ and his sin too, to be pardoned and not purged, to be saved and not sanctified. Away, and never think to eat this Lamb with leven'd bread come with bitter herbs them mayest, contrition for sin, but come not with and in thy sins, for that's eating with levened bread; therefore search it out, and let thy sins be searcht out as with a candle, and let them be execrable to thee, that God may see thy hatred of them, and thy loathing of thy self for them".

Vines is also excellent on what it is to eat and drink worthily and unworthily.

Practical Calvinism

The Practical Implications of Calvinism

A.N. Martin (Banner of Truth)

Using the definition of Calvinism as 'that sight of the majesty of God that pervades all of life and all of experience' Al Martin makes the point that unless the doctrines of God's sovereignty profoundly affect the whole of our experience, then we have not really seen God as God and cannot actually claim to be Calvinists. Drawing upon invaluable scriptures Martin presses this home with exhortation to a vital and practical godliness. The total commitment that Isaiah's vision produced in him follows as naturally as Ephesians chapters 4, 5 and 6 continue from chapters 1, 2 and 3. The author speaks of honest scriptural self-examination, a holy watchfulness and distrust of oneself, a consistent prayerfulness and a trustful dependence on God to fulfill all that he has purposed. All, at least, who hold to the doctrines of grace should be thoroughly acquainted with this booklet. That it is relatively cheap and only 23 pages long - leaves none with excuse. We wonder how much of this experimental Calvinism is present in the new Calvinism that is described in the book Young, Restless and Reformed.

The Dutch theologian A'Brakel puts it well in The Christian's Reasonable Service.
"God is not only the cause of spiritual life, but also the object of its motions. God Himself is all the delight, pleasure, and joy of the regenerate man. He cannot be without God. He wishes for and must enjoy the light of God's countenance, peace with God, and love and communion with God. By virtue of union with God he wishes to be united to His will, and thus to hate and shun what He hates, and to find delight in and in doing whatever God delights in and is pleasing to Him."

He also says: "Someone may have a very clear comprehension of all the mysteries of the faith, both as far as the truths and their desirability are concerned. Let him assent with full assurance to these truths as truths and to their desirability - it is nevertheless not true faith. It is indeed true that believers also have knowledge and assent, but they cannot rest in this. They know and experience that this does not cause them to be partakers of Christ, and therefore they go beyond this and appropriate Christ. They rest in Him, entrusting their soul and body to him in order that He would justify them"

The world's oldest known Bible?

BBC don't often get into matters of textual criticism but here is their rather lame attempt at describing Codex Sinaiticus. There are various factual errors in this article, which are identified here by Dirk Jongkind. The most serious error is surely the description of it as the "world's oldest surviving Bible". It can only be described as such in that it contains in one place the New Testament text. It does not, however, contain it all. There are many serious omissions - the crucial verses of the end of Mark's Gospel are missing from this manuscript. It is not a complete Bible. We also have the huge problem that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the two preferred manuscripts) disagree with each other (and this is not counting simple errors such as spelling) more than 34 times per chapter in the gospels. In the prison epistles they disagree more times than they agree. Sinaiticus also contains books that noone thinks are part of the canon, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. There is no way to know whether the manuscript originally ended with Hermas or contained other works. These scribes were far astray in their view of what was Scripture. Why should we trust it? The textual critic Kirsopp Lake states.

"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition…." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction). The man who discovered it, Tischendorf said that he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." It was corrected into the twelfth century, so how do we know which is original and old in the manuscript?

The BBC article shows how the unbelieving approach to textual criticism that prefers the critical text and manuscripts such as Sinaiticus engenders unbelief in those such as Bart Ehrman. Maurice Robinson is right to say of the current state of textual criticism that it is at sea and driving upon the rocks of liberal unbelief without the Byzantine-priority position which identifies the true text as having been preserved by the Byzantine Church rather than in the West. The most consistent Byzantine-priority position is to identify the Textus Receptus as the true text. We ought to remember that Dean Burgon and Edward F Hills have demonstrated that the writings of the Early Fathers and papyri which are far earlier than Sinaiticus witness to the early date of the Byzantine text.
'Current eclectic speculation involves heterodox scribes who are claimed to have preserved a more genuine text than the orthodox, as well as a general uncertainty whether the original text can be recovered, or whether any concept of an "original" text can be maintained. The Byzantine-priority position offers a clear theoretical and practical alternative to the pessimistic suppositions of postmodern eclectic subjectivity. The various eclectic schools continue to flounder without an underlying history of transmission to explain and anchor the hypothetically "best attainable" NT text which they have constructed out of bits and pieces of scattered readings'.

Clergy-Laity distinction

George Gillespie shows that this distinction is not biblical.
"the distinction of the clergy and laity is popish and antichristian; and they who have narrowly considered the records of ancient times, have noted this distinction as one of the grounds whence the mystery of iniquity had the beginning of it. The name of clergy appropriate to ministers, is full of pride and vain-glory, and hath made the holy people of God to be despised, as if they were profane and unclean in comparison of their ministers. Gerhard likeneth those who take to themselves the name of clergy, to the Pharisees, who called themselves by that name: for that their holiness did separate them from the rest of the Jews: for this etymology of the name Pharisee, he citeth Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and confirmeth it from Luke 18.10. Hence was it that some councils discharged the laity from presuming to enter within the choir, or to stand among the clergy near the altar. Two reasons are alleged why the ministers of the church should be called klhroV. First, Because the Lord is their inheritance: Secondly, Because they are the Lord's inheritance. Now, both these reasons do agree to all the faithful people of God; for there is none of the faithful who may not say with David, Psalm 16.5, "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance;" and of whom also it may be said, that they are the Lord's inheritance, or lot; for Peter giveth this name to the whole church, 1 Pet. 5.3. Where (if it were needful) we might challenge Bishop Hall [Of Episcop. by Divine Right, p. 212.], who borroweth a gloss from Bellarmine and Gregorious de Valentia, telling us, that Peter chargeth his fellow-bishops not to domineer over their clergy, so shutting out of the text, both the duty of pastors (because the bishops only are meant by elders), and the benefit of the people, because the inferior pastors are the bishop's flock, according to this gloss; for Peter opposeth the lording over the klhroV, to "being ensamples to the flock." Surely, if this popish gloss be true, Protestants, in their commentaries and sermons, have gone wide from that text. But Matthias, the apostle, was chosen by lot, Acts 1.26. What then? By what reason doth the canon law draw from hence a name common to all the ministers of the gospel? [D. 21, ca. Cleros.] Let us then banish from us such popish names, and send them home to Rome. Bellarmine [De Cleric. lib. 1., cap. 1.] thought we had done so long ere now, for he maketh this one of his controverted heads, Whether we may rightly call some Christians the clergy, and others the laity, or not, ascribing the negative to Protestants, the affirmative to the Church of Rome."

George Gillespie, Assertion of the Kirk of Scotland

The discipline of the Second Reformation

Much has been written on the subject of the discipline of the Scottish Reformation. There is for instance, Hay Fleming's Discpline of the Scottish Reformation . There is also 'The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland' By Margo Todd and 'The Uses of Reform: "godly Discipline" and Popular Behavior in Scotland and Beyond, 1560-1610'
By Michael F. Graham.

The Second Reformation continued this emphasis on a strong national church vested with extensive powers of discipline but there has been little treatment of this. Andrew Symington, however, comments appropriately 'The men of the Second Reformation brought every matter of faith, worship, discipline, and government, to the test of the divine word, applying this measuring reed to the temple, the altar, and them that worship therein'. The importance that they placed upon it can be seen in the way in which David Dickson and James Durham bring it into even the Sum of Saving Knowledge. 'God hath made a gift of Christ unto his people, as a commander: which office he faithfully exerciseth, by giving to his kirk and people laws and ordinances, pastors and governors, and all necessary officers; by keeping courts and assemblies among them, to see that his laws be obeyed; subduing, by his word, Spirit, and discipline, his people's corruptions; and; by his wisdom and power, guarding them against all their enemies whatsoever'. 'By kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant'.

There are key resources such as the Presbytery Book of Kirkcaldy which shows a remarkable thoroughness and consistency in discipline over a range of matters. Many modern church courts would grow very weary very soon at the volume of discipline cases that this presbytery dealt with.

Now the Acts of General Assembly from the Reformation through to the Second Reformation have been published online.

These acts show that the Second Reformation Church was not hesitant about enacting legislation relating to discipline at General Assembly level. They were concerned for uniformity, whereas many modern Presbyterians are wary of supreme courts dealing with matters of discipline or of being too black and white. Some argue that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction in these matters. The Second Reformation men were very specific and detailed in what they believed should be made a matter of discipline and what should be accepted and enforced as law by judicial process and what lower courts were obliged to carry out. The detail of the Larger Catechism on the Ten Commandments is consistent with this.

Act Sess. 21, August 29, 1639.—Act anent the keeping of the Lord's Day. Sess. 11, August 14, 1643.—Act against Masters who have Servants that Prophane the Lord's Day.
Sess. 5, Aug. 1, 1640.—Act for censuring Speakers against the Covenant.
Act for restraining Abuses at Pennie Brydals.
Act against Lykwakes.
Sess. Ult. Junii 18, 1646, ante meridiem.—Act against loosing of Ships and Barks upon the Lord's Day.
Sess. Ult., February 13, 1645, post meridiem.—Act for censuring the Observers of Yule-day, and other superstitious dayes, especially if they be Schollars.

Drawing nearer heaven through maximal use of the Scriptures

The following quotation from the Westminster divine William Twisse expresses very well the Puritan attitude towards the due use of necessary means particulary maximal use of the Scriptures and submission to their authority.

"There is a...fulness of faith that we should strive unto, and of knowledge as well as of holiness: For this life is our way to heaven, and still we must draw nearer thitherwards, by knowing all that we can know by the Word, Deut 29:29" (The Scripture's Sufficiency)

It is important to not that Twisse is evidently not referring to mere head knowledge but knowledge of how to glorify and enjoy God from the only rule to direct us how we may do this.

Phillipians 3:13ff. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended,but this one thing I do; forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before; I press toward the mark,for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus: Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded
and if in anything ye be otherwise minded; God shall reveal even this unto you; Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained,let us walk by the same rule;let us mind the same thing;

The Sighs of the Lord Jesus Christ

The tears of Christ over Jerusalem are astonishing - but equally astonishing are his sighs as recorded in the gospel. The sighs of Jesus (Mk. 7:34; 8:12; John 11:33) point us to the completeness of our Lord’s humanity - they are sinless expressions out of the fullness of the emotions shared as part of our humanity. Sometimes the sighs are in response to the unbelief of his hearers, before performing a miracle or in response to the evil of death.

When He unstopped the ears of the deaf man, he sighed and said, ‘Ephphatha, be opened’. Why was this? It was not a sighing at the greatness of the miracle required to heal the deaf. It was a response to the destructive effects of the Fall and of sin. When we sigh and cry for abominations we have something of that spirit (Ezekiel 9:4). There was a holy anger against sin in Christ but a tenderness and pity towards the man himself. He was the great High Priest who had compassion upon those that were ignorant and out of the way. How expressive it is when we read that He also looked up to heaven when he sighed. Can we fathom the depths of that sigh, any more than we can fathom the depths of the heart of the One greater than Solomon, who had ‘largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore’ (1 Kings 4:29)? As Samuel Rutherford has commented, when His holy heart was stirred it was like the stirring of perfume only the sweet savour of holy emotions arose, whereas when our heart is stirred it is often like the stirring of the bottom of a pond which brings foul smelling things from the bottom to the surface.

There was a prayer in this sigh. A sigh of intercession. When we read frequently of sighing in the psalms we ought to think of the sighs of Christ of whom the psalms speak. He came to enter into, in the fullest possible, yet sinless way, this world of sighing and tears. He could say Psalm 31:10, ‘For my life is spent with grief, and my years with sighing’. He was a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief. He could say in His extremity, ‘I am poor and sorrowful’ (Psalm 69:29). Intercession means intervention too, however. ‘For the sighing of the needy, now will I arise’ Psalm 12:5. Exodus 2:23, ‘the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage’. As the Lord visited His people then, so He came in a more glorious way as Immanuel, God with us. He came in order that the redeemed of the Lord would come again to the heavenly Zion, when ‘sorrow and sighing shall flee away’ (Isaiah 35:10).

what the soul desires from divine forgiveness

John Knox in a treatise on Psalm 6 outlines some of the essentials that the soul desires from divine forgiveness. For the text of Psalm 6 see below. According to Knox there are four things that David seeks and could not be without:

“David, in sum, desires four things in this his vehement trouble. In the first verse, he asks that God would not punish him in his heavy displeasure and wrath. In the second verse, he asks that God should have mercy upon him. And in the third verse, he desires that he should heal him. And in the fourth verse, he asks that God should return unto him, and that he should save his soul. Every one of these things was so necessary unto David, that lacking any one of them, he judges himself most miserable. He felt the wrath of God, and therefore desired the same to be removed. He had offended, and therefore desired mercy. He was fallen into most dangerous sickness, and therefore he cried for corporeal health. God appeared to be departed from him, and therefore he desired that the comfort of the Holy Ghost should return unto him.”

This is well expressed in Isaiah 12:1 "And in that day thou shalt say, O LORD, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me". The healing the soul needs is in relation to the effects and consequences of sin and backsliding. It needs the joy of salvation restored.

McCrie comments on this treatise by Knox "It is an excellent practical discourse upon
that portion of Scripture, and will be read with peculiar satisfaction by
those who have been trained to religion in the school of adversity". Knox refers to Psalm 6 in his treatise on prayer "Let no man think himself unworthy to call and pray to God, because he hath grievously offended his majesty in times past; but let him bring to God a sorrowful and repenting heart, saying with David, “Heal my soul, O Lord, for I have offended against thee". Knox writes in the treatise: "Here must I put you in mind, dearly beloved, how oft you and I have talked of these present days, till neither of us could refrain [from] tears, when no such appearance there was seen by man. How oft have I said unto you, that I looked daily for trouble, and that I wondered at it, that I did escape it so long? What moved me to refuse, and that with displeasure of all men (even of those who best loved me), those high promotions which were offered by him, whom God has taken from us for our offences?" It seems that the treatise was written either for his wife Marjorie Bowes or her mother, with whom he corresponded. The treatise was entitled "Fort for the Afflicted". The mother-in-law is described in the following way.

"On the one, according to Knox she was a person with strong convictions who at times strengthened even him when he was faint. This we may well believe, for she withstood considerable opposition, if not persecution, in her own family because of her faith. On the other hand, she had continual doubts and fears about her own spiritual condition: whether she had true faith, whether she was of the elect, whether she had committed the unpardonable sin. This uncertainty caused her constantly to consult Knox, and when he was not present to write to him. The letters in which he attempted to reply to her questions she kept and these provide us with a good insight not only into her problems, but into Knox himself." (W. Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God [New York, 1974], p. 79-80.)


1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
2 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; for I am weak: O LORD, heal me; for my bones are vexed.

3 My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O LORD, how long?

4 Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake.

5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

6 I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.

7 Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies.

8 Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping.

9 The LORD hath heard my supplication; the LORD will receive my prayer.

10 Let all mine enemies be ashamed and sore vexed: let them return and be ashamed suddenly.

the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness

Archibald Alexander Hodge gave a very significant lecture upon his installation as Associate Professor of Dogmatic and Polemic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, November 8, 1877. His theme was the necessity of doctrine in defence against the vague attacks made upon emphasising doctrinal distinctions.
Hodge asserts 'that the truth revealed in the Scriptures, and embraced in what evangelical Christians style Christian dogma, is the great God-appointed means of producing in men a holy character and life. At present neither the general truth of Christianity nor that of any particular system of theology claiming to represent it, is the question, but the truth of Christianity being assumed, we affirm that the truths set forth in the Word of God in their mutual relations, are necessary means of promoting holiness of heart and life'.

He makes the following vital affirmation:

'I therefore affirm my belief that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in their integrity are the Word of God, as a whole and in every part infallible and binding the conscience, and the only divinely authentic informant and rule of faith in matters of religion. Christian theology is wholly in the Scriptures, and is to be drawn from them only by legitimate interpretation. This is true of systematic as absolutely as of exegetical or of Biblical theology. The system lies in the relations of the facts, and their relations are deteremined by their nature, as that is disclosed by the words of the Holy Ghost. The systematic theologian as well as the exegete is only an interpreter; the one interprets the words and develops the revealed truths; the other interprets these separate lessons in their mutual light and reciprocal relations, and develops the revealed system.

More definitely I affirm, not as a professional propriety, but as a personal conviction, that the Confession and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly contain the system taught in the Holy Scriptures. Or rather, in the more absolute terms of subscription imposed upon intrants by the Scottish Presbyterian Churches, "I do sincerely own and believe the WHOLE DOCTRINE contained in the Confession of Faith, approved by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God, and do acknowledge the same as the confession of my personal faith, and will firmly and constantly adhere thereunto, and to the utmost of my power will assert, maintain, and defend the same." This is affirmed, not only because I believe this "whole doctrine" to be true, but because I also believe this "system of doctrine" to be the most complete and adequate presentation as yet attained by the Church of that truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures, which the Holy Ghost has declared to be "the power of God unto salvation." For therein Christ and His work is exhibited in their relation to human needs, experiences, duties, and destinies, and it is, therefore, the efficient instrument of forming character, of ruling action, and of effecting salvation'.

Israel knows what to do with lite Bible versions

Israel’s Education Ministry has banned a lite version of the Bible as
reported at Haaretz. "The Education Ministry is to ban Bible aid booklets that help elementary and junior high school students by “translating” the text into simple Hebrew". The whole debate on the issue is very significant in echoing the objections to modern English translations and the issue of preserving the biblical English of the Authorised Version.

“The idea of translating the Bible into simple contemporary language is ‘scandalous,’ Drora Halevy, the ministry's National Supervisor for Bible Studies, told Haaretz. The booklets present the text in ‘skimpy slang’ that cheapens the Bible,” she added. "Halevy is convinced that using the simple-language Bible will lead to the loss of Biblical expressions and idioms that are used in contemporary Hebrew. She asserts that the booklet's meager language drives children away from the Bible, rather than bring them closer."

“It’s a purely marketing initiative intended for the below-average; it's a disaster,” says Professor Yaira Amit, a Bible instruction expert. “This is a colossal failure of our education system that defies description,” says Professor Amit. “How come children used to be able to read the Bible? How come they used to be able to learn sections by heart? It was hard for them then too, but they dealt with it because they were told it was important." “We give precedence to shallowness and shortcuts in many areas of modern life. It’s OK in e-mails in which the message is the main thing. But where is the boundary? You cannot do away with cultural values.”

"Teaching experts lambast the booklets, warning that children will skip reading the Bible and opt for the simplified version. This will not only deteriorate Bible studies but also impact the Hebrew language, which is based on the Bible, they say". “The Bible is the Hebrew language’s dictionary. It's the foundation of everything, says linguist Zvia Valdan. “If you read it without the original expressions and rhythms, it will lose its impact and power.”

"Booklet publishers Rafi Moses and Reches Publications say the Bible is a foreign language to Israeli children, who need to read it in simple language to understand it. Halevy and other Bible and Hebrew language experts fear that children will simply not bother to read the Bible, but use the simple language version instead".

In the Bible Lite version everything is paraphrased. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is rendered “in the beginning God created the world.”

The man behind the Bible Lite version is a former Bible teacher and headmaster, and he indicates that he perceives it as a rewriting of Scripture. “When they first suggested [making the booklets] I was astonished. Why should we rewrite the Bible in a simple tongue?’ says Avraham Ahuvia, 87, of kibbutz Netzer Sereni.

A commendation of Presbyterian Church Government

"The Presbyterial Government; wherein is to be found such ample provision, and that according to the Word of God, for comely order against confusion; for peace and unity of the Church against schism and division; for truth of the faith against all error and heresy; for piety and unblameableness against all impiety and scandal of conversation [conduct]; for equity and right gainst all maladminitrations, whether ignorant, arbitrary or tyrannical; for the honour and purity of all Christ's ordinances against all contempt, pollution and profanation; for comfort, quickening and encouragement of the saints in all the ways of Christ; and consequently for the honour of God and our Lord Jesus Christ in all the mysterious services of his spiritual sanctuary".

From Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). James Bannerman in The Church of Christ says this “work contains an extremely able, thorough, and satisfactory discussion of most of the points relating to the nature of Church government as a Divine institution, and to the power or authority of the Church, its seat and exercise.”
It can be purchased here. It is a book that seeks to address the issues in a careful and positive way. It opens by statings this "Things are handled rather by way of Positive Assertion than Polemical Differentiation (which too commonly degenerates into verbal strifes, 1 Tim. 6:3-4, 2 Tim. 2:23, and vain-jangling, 1 Tim. 1:6); and where any dissenting opinions or Objections are repelled, we hope it is with that sobriety, meekness and moderation of spirit that any unprejudiced judgement may perceive we had rather gain than grieve those that dissent from us. We endeavor rather to heal up than to tear open the rent, and we contend more for Truth than for victory."

The Credit Crunch viewed from the right perspective

Terrible is the crisis through which the commercial world is passing. Fearful are the throes of mental anxiety now visible on the countenances of its ardent votaries. Next to the tnmnlt of the craftsmen at Ephesus is the commotion around the doors of some Banking Establishments. And there are faces not a few which vividly call up the visage of Micah, when he cried to the relentless spoilers — "Ye have taken away my gods which I have made, and what have I more?"

In regard to temporal things, commercial men are thrown into the deepest alarm by a monetary panic, which may affect their social position for the present or for life; and yet the same individuals can hear of eternal death without a passing emotion, or of eternal life without having the currents of thought changed for a single hour! How shall we account for such a difference of feeling, unless on the ground that Mammon occupies the chief place, and that those things which are seen and temporal lie nearer the heart than those things which are unseen and eternal! Such callous indifference could never be, were not the glory of man placed above the glory of God.

The present crisis must be ranged in the category of divine judgments. It is altogether out of the ordinary course of human experience. It bears the impress of offended Deity. It proclaims the wrath of the "Governor among the nations." The present calamity is not local, neither is it confined to any one class of the community. In this dread crisis, the rich and poor meet together. It is thus that the panic is transferred from the marts of merchandise to the hearths and homes of every family. It is this especially that marks the footsteps of national judgment.

We have no intention of showing what legislative or commercial wisdom might have done to avert the calamity; nor by what expedients the effects of this crisis may be most efficiently met. There is enough of this elsewhere — yea, so much, that the minds of men seldom rise above the instruments, forgetful that the God of Nations is the Author. “Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?" There are three patent facts, and to these we solicit attention. There is national judgment. National judgment is the consequence of national sin. Escape from national judgment can only be realised by national repentance.

In tracing some of the more prominent causes of the present crisis, commercial immorality holds a distinguished place. By this, we mean the violation of those principles of right and wrong which ought to regulate the business intercourse of man with man, firm with firm, and nation with nation. In the world which God has made so good, there is enough for all. In the development of trade and commerce, there ¡s labour and remuneration for all. In the social relations there are channels opened up by which the bounties of Divine Providence may be distributed to all. It is man's perversion — and man's perversion alone — that deranges the moral machinery, and stops the wheels of social progress. It is thus, as in the present case, that a period of prosperity abused, hastens on the gloomy season of adversity. Prosperity tends to excite pride ; pride produces the desire for display and luxury; extravagance exhausts legitimate resources; while exhausted resources, with pride unsubdued, tempt to rash speculation on the one hand, or fraudulent transactions on the other. All these, with their accompanying evils, are the characteristics of the present age.


Is not the God of all the earth now saying, as of old — "Hear this, O ye that swallow up the poor and the needy, even to make the poor of the land fail. Saying, when will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit ? that we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes ; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat." These things are not uncommon, and are lightly esteemed; but the least of them escapes not the eyes of the moral Governor; hence he adds — " The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, surely I will never forget their works. Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one that dwelleth therein? ... I will darken the earth in a clear day. And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation, and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head, and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day."

The bitter day has come.

The penalty of extravagance is ultimate penury. The old proverb holds true, that “wilful waste brings woeful want." It is unnecessary to expatiate on the effects of extravagance in maturing the corruptions of the heart — in widening and deepening the streams of human depravity ! These are fearfully manifest in the immorality of our most prosperous cities. These seem of old to have brought the destruction of Sodom. “Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters." Similar causes produce similar results, and the nation is now reaping the bitter fruits.

There is still another cause of divine judgment, which, though generally overlooked, is by no means the least in the bill of indictment — the robbery of God ! — the repudiation of the claims of Jehovah ! This seems to all beyond the pale of the Church, and, to the majority within her, a light crime; but viewed in the light of Revelation, it appears the heaviest of all. In the cases previously noticed, the frauds practised are between man and man. In this latter case, it is the defrauding of the Universal Proprietor. If sin is represented as of infinite demerit, because committed against an infinitely holy God, it must be apparent that the sin of robbing God is one of the most heinous, as committed against His infinite justice.

They are blind who cannot see that the sin of Israel in the time of Haggai is the sin of Britain and America at the present day, and the punishment then inflicted the penalty now required of both. “Is it a time for you, 0 ye, to dwell in your ceiled houses, and this house lie waste ? Now therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink ; ye clothe you, but there is none warm ; and he that earneth wages, earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes." Could anything be more descriptive of our present position? Vast speculations and bitter disappointments ; extensive schemes of ambition and sudden bankruptcy ; good wages and wasting immorality ; wealth acquired, but even the Banks have become as bags with holes ! “Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little ; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it, saith the Lord of hosts." And why? "Because of mine house that is waste, and ye did run every man to his own house. Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit. And I called for drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands." Is not this a moral portrait of the nation's guilt, and also of her punishment? Here, also, we have the germs of the punishment nursed in the corresponding transgression. Withholding from God His due, the mind becomes more and more estranged, and communities, like individuals, become “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." If men are unjust to God in regard to service, or the dedication of offerings, how can they be just to their fellow-men?

If righteous claims on the part of God are disregarded, where is the security that any man will regard the claims of his neighbour? The violation of the Sabbath, the neglect of ordinances, and the pursuit of carnal pleasure, have mined the foundations of our social morality; and hence nothing more is requisite than a general panic to cause the destruction of the channels of national sustenance!

Such we esteem the present crisis! Human foresight could not prevent it, and human sagacity cannot avert its consequences. It is the work of God; yea, the "strange work” of righteous retribution! The cause is moral, and so must the remedy also be. Space will not permit its full development, but we shall simply at present indicate some of its leading characteristics. If fraud is the parent of distrust, then all fraudulent maxims and practices must be abandoned. If reckless speculation is the ruin of commerce, it must be completely checked. If encouragement to bold speculators is unjust to the legitimate trader, then all facilities for the false-credit system must be explicitly discarded by our banking establishments. If pride and extravagance tend directly to ruin domestic comfort and arrest social progress, the former must be humbled, and the latter rigidly restrained. If disregard of the precepts of the first table of the moral law is the cause of such flagrant violations of the precepts of the second, all relations and enterprises and transactions must be conducted with a regard to the glory of God.

Finally, if the robbery of God is declared in His Word to be the cause of national judgments, these cannot be removed until the claims of Jehovah are fully recognised and honoured. These are His own terms in dealing with nations; and "woe be to those who coveting an evil covetousness," disregard them!"

This is as true now as when it was published 150 years ago in the ORIGINAL SECESSION MAGAZINE. JANUARY, 1858.

Whose Voice? The Emerging Church rewrite the Bible

A(nother) new version has been produced and is being promoted. The Voice New Testament. One doesn't need to comment much on this. It speaks for itself. It is almost explicitly a version with the stamp of the Emerging Church Movement. (For a whole range of articles critiquing the Emerging Church click here)
"Any literary project reflects the age in which it is written. The Voice is created for and by a church in great transition. Throughout the body of Christ, extensive discussions are ongoing about a variety of issues including style of worship, how we separate culture from our theology, and what is essential truth. At the center of this discussion is the role of Scripture. Instead of furthering the division over culture and theology, it is time to bring the body of Christ together again around the Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers and Ecclesia Bible Society together are developing Scripture products that foster spiritual growth and theological exploration out of a heart for worship and mission. We have dedicated ourselves to hearing and proclaiming God’s voice through this project.

Previously most Bibles and biblical reference works were produced by professional scholars writing in academic settings. The Voice uniquely represents collaboration among scholars, pastors, writers, musicians, poets, and other artists. The goal is to create the finest Bible products to help believers experience the joy and wonder of God’s revelation. This is the first-ever complete New Testament in The Voice translation. Writers include Chris Seay, Lauren Winner, Brian McLaren, Greg Garrett, David B. Capes, and others.

Four key words describe the vision of this project:
Holistic: considers heart, soul, and mind
Beautiful: achieves literary and artistic excellence
Sensitive: respects cultural shifts and the need for accuracy
Balanced: includes theologically diverse writers and scholars

We have taken care that The Voice is faithful and that it avoids prejudice. As we partnered biblical scholars and theologians with our writers, we intentionally built teams that did not share any single theological tradition. Their diversity has helped each of them not to be trapped within his or her own individual preconceptions, resulting in a faithful and fresh rendering of the Bible.

Features include: bronze, highlighted text; screenplay-like format, ideal for public readings and group studies; devotional commentary; and book introductions."

It's literary qualities let alone it's fidelity to the inspired original are greatly in question as the following extract from John 1:1-5 shows.

"Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God. 2This celestial Voice remained ever present with the Creator; 3His speech shaped the entire cosmos. Immersed in the practice of creating, all things that exist were birthed in Him. 4His breath filled all things with a living, breathing light. 5 Light that thrives in the depths of darkness, blazing through murky bottoms. It cannot, and will not, be quenched."

10 Marks of Grace

The following are some marks of grace by which we can examine ourselves whether we are in the faith and Christ is in us. More could be added and those that have been listed could be better expressed. I hope that the marks given are not too high so as to discourage any that are struggling as to their assurance of faith.

1. Love for Christ in His Person and not for His benefits only, and a desire for fellowship with Him above all other things.
2. Love for the Word of God as the Kingly Word of Christ, submitting entirely to His authority in every word.
3. Love for the Lord's Day as the Market Day for the soul and sincere spiritual delight in devoting it to the public and private exercises of the worship of God.
4. Love for all the means of grace where God meets those that remember Him in His ways.
5. Love for the Lord's people and spiritual fellowship with them because of their union with Christ.
6. Love for holiness and the desire to be holy, with a sincere hatred of every sin.
7. Love for the secret place of prayer and a mourning over our coldness and carnality in that exercise.
8. Love to the service of Christ in any way and a fear of dishonouring Him
9. Love for meditating on heavenly things and an estrangement from that which is worldly.
10.A fear that these marks are so faint within us as not to be genuine at all

The puritan John Flavel was very discerning in relation to marks of grace. He counselled that: 'Great heed ought also to be had in the application of marks and signs; we should first try them; before we try ourselves or others by them.'

He mentions that 'Marks and signs are by some distinguished into exclusive, inclusive, and positive:

Exclusive marks serve to shut out bold pretenders, by shewing them how far
they come short of a saving work of grace; and they are commonly taken
from some necessary common duty, as hearing, praying, &c. He that hath
not these things, cannot have any work of grace in him; and yet if he do them,
he cannot conclude from thence his estate to be gracious: He that so
concludes, he deceives himself.

Inclusive marks rather discover [declare] the degrees than the truth of grace, and are rather intended for comfort than for conviction: If we find them in ourselves,
we do not only find sincerity, but eminency of grace; They being taken from
some raised degree and eminent acts of grace in confirmed and grown
Christians.

Betwixt the two former there is a middle sort of marks, which are called
positive marks, and they are such as are always, and only found, in regenerate
souls: The hypocrite hath them not; the grown Christian hath them, and that
in an eminent degree: The poorest Christian hath them in a lower, but saving
degree: Great care must be taken in the application of them. And it is past
doubt that many weak and injudicious Christians have been greatly
prejudiced by finding the experiences of eminent Christians proposed as rules
to measure their sincerity by. Alas! these no more fit their souls, than Saul’s
armour did David’s body'.

I leave it to the reader to discern into which category the marks listed above fall.

Christ the river by which His people are planted

The Works of Jonathan Edwards (many never published before from manuscript) are now online. The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online will digitally publish manuscripts and edited versions of all of the 100,000 pages that Jonathan Edwards produced in his lifetime.

Here are some notes of a lecture on the text Psalm 1:3 that I enjoyed particularly. It was delivered in 1751 in connection with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I have abridged and edited it to interpret the shorthand.
Psalm 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

Christ is to the Heart of a true saint like a River to the Roots of a tree that is planted by it.

In the following Respects

1. As the waters of a River run easily and freely so the love of Christ freely came into the World.

His blood was freely shed blood flowed as freely from his wounds as water from a spring.

All the Good Things that Christ bestows on his saints come to them as freely as water runs down in a River. The Chief and most excellent things that Christ bestows are the Influences of his Spirit on their hearts to Enlighten, sanctify and comfort. These all come freely from Christ like the waters of a River.

2. Christ is Like a River in the great plenty and abundance of his Love and Grace.

The Good things that are the Fruits of his Love are infinitely Great.

The Happiness that he gives worth more than all the silver and Gold in the world.

The Tree that spreads out its Roots by a River has water enough - no need of Rain or any other water, so the true saint finds enough in Christ. Great plenty of water. Enough to supply a great multitude of Persons with drink to satisfy all their Thirst. To supply the Roots of a multitude of trees.


3. The Water of a River does not fail. It flows constantly day and night.

Waters that Run upon the Ground [coming] from showers of Rain or melting of the snows soon dry up and little Brooks dry up in a very dry Time.

But the waters of a great River continue running continually and from one age to another and are never dry. The Grace of Christ in the Heart shall always Continue. Christ never will take away his Spirit from them. That inward Life and comfort that Christ gives the Hearts of his saints shall continue to all.

When the death comes that comfort and Happiness shall Continue. When the End of the World comes yet their Comforts shall still be like a River that shall not be dried up.

4. A Tree planted by a river is never dry[?]

The soul is joined to Christ and they are made one. As the water enters into the Roots, so Christ enters the Heart and soul of a Godly man and dwells there. The spirit of Christ comes into the very Heart of a saint as water to the Roots of a tree.

5. A river Refreshes. So Christ Refreshes and satisfies and makes the heart Rejoyce. Water gives Life and keeps it alive so makes it grow makes it grow beautiful and fruitful. A Tree planted is green in time of Great drought when others trees wither. So the soul of a true saint is green in time of affliction, at death, at the end of the World.

Application.

1. Examination. whether you are a true saint.

has your soul been ever like a tree planted by this River.

They that are saints have been the subjects of a great Change their souls are like a Tree digged up by the Roots out of a dry barren Ground and planted in a new Place. Hearts taken off from the this world and planted in God and Christ and heaven.

They no more trust in the world but put their Trust in God. They do not trust in themselves their own strength or Righteouesness but trust only in Christ.

If you are a saint then Christ is sweet and Refreshing to you as the water of a River to a man when He is very thirsty.

Is Christ sweeter and better than the sweetest food? Is he better than all the things of the world?
Has your mind been enlightened to see that there is enough in Christ?

Does your Religion continue Like a Tree planted or does your Religion come to nothing like a tree planted in a dry Barren ground? Is it the Religion that is like Puddles after a Rain which dry up. But the Religion of a truly Good man is like a River. Do you bring forth fruit?

2. Exhortation to sinners to seek an Interest in Jesus Christ if you are not in Christ thoough you you may be like green Trees, yet by and by you will wither. All your streams will fail you.

Guarding against Wavering

It is good divinity to maintain that scepticism, fluctuation and wavering, concerning those things which God hath revealed to be believed or done by us, is a sin; and to be firm, fixed and established in the faith, is a duty commanded. I shall first prove it to be so; then give reasons for it; and, thirdly, some helps to this duty, and preservatives against this sin.

For proof of the thing, somewhat might be said from the very light of nature; for "hath a nation changed their gods?" Jer. 2.11...But, to set aside nature's light, there is not any of the primitive churches to which the apostles wrote epistles, but they were expressly warned, either positively, to stand fast in the faith, to hold fast their profession, or, negatively, to beware of, and to avoid false teachers, and not to be carried about with divers and strange doctrines. Now it must needs be not only a truth, but a most special and necessary truth, which the apostles thought fit thus to press upon the churches in all their epistles written to them. See Rom. 16.17,18; 1 Cor. 16.13; 2 Cor. 11.3,4; Gal. 1.6,8; Eph. 4.14; Phil. 3.2,18; Col. 2.6-8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; Heb. 10.23; 13.9; James 5.19,20; 2 Pet. 2.1-3; 3.16-18; 1 John 4. 1; Jude 3,4. All these texts are full and plain as to this point which I speak to, and in that respect most worthy of our frequent thoughts and observation, especially at such a time when this corner of the world is so full of new and strange doctrines.

As for the reasons, take these:
1. If we be not steadfast and immovable in the profession of our faith, we frustrate (as to us) the end for which the Scriptures were written. Luke gives this reason to his Theophilus why he wrote the story of Christ's birth, life and death, "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed," Luke 1.4. When Peter hath mentioned the voice which came from heaven concerning Christ, he addeth the certainty of the Scripture as a greater certainty, "We have also a more sure word of prophesy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place," 2 Pet. 1.19. A voice from heaven might sooner deceive us than the written word of God.
2. To maintain and profess the true doctrine, and the true faith, is, by all protestant orthodox writers, made one, yea, the principal mark of a true visible church. Christ himself, John x. 4, 5, gives us this mark of his sheep, "The sheep follow him (their shepherd), for they know his voice, and a stranger will they not follow, for they know not the voice of strangers."
3. If once we forsake the way of truth, and go into an erroneous way, we shall not know where to find our paths, we shall wander from mountain to hill, and forget our resting place. As one wave comes after another, so doth one error come after another. As a canker spreadeth, so doth error, 2 Tim. 2.19; "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived," 2 Tim. 3.13: which hath made some, and I hope will make more, who were too inclinable to the new doctrine and practices of sectaries at first, now to fall off from them, when "they increase unto more ungodliness," and unto more error. And there is no end; one error breedeth a hundred, and a hundred will breed ten thousand. What was it that made so many fall off from the prelates who once joined with them? Was it not because they were growing from the old ceremonies to many new ones, and each year, almost, brought in some new superstition, and from popish rites they grew to popish doctrines?
4. If we waver and be led about with divers and strange doctrines, then the prophecies which have gone before of the true church shall not be made good in us. It was promised concerning the church and kingdom of Christ, Isa. 32.4,5, "The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly, the vile person shall no more be called liberal," &c., that is, those who simply and rashly were led about with every wind of doctrine shall be so wise and knowing as to distinguish between truth and error, between virtue and vice, and call each thing by its right name. So Isa. 33. 6, "And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation."
5. Instability and forsaking the way of truth makes us lose much that we had gained, 2 John 8; all the comfort we enjoyed, all the good that ever our souls received of such a truth, such a cause, such a ministry, all that ever we did, or spake, or suffered for the truth, all this we lose when we turn aside after an erroneous way. 6. It greatly hindereth our spiritual comfort and contentment. Col. 2.2, to be knit together in love is one mean, and to have all riches of the full assurance of understanding to the acknowledgment of gospel truths, is another mean by which the Apostle wisheth the hearts of Christians to be comforted. It added much to Paul's comfort that he could say, "I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown," &c., 2 Tim. 4.7,8.
7. We run a great hazard of our souls and our salvation when we turn aside from truth to error. It is said of the unstable, that they wrest the Scriptures "unto their own destruction," 2 Pet. 3.16. Like a man fallen into quicksands, the more he wrestles out the more he sinks. When the Apostle hath spoken of Christ's purchasing of our reconciliation, justification and sanctification, he addeth an if; Col. 1.23, "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard." Not that our persevering in the true faith was a condition in Christ's purchasing of these blessings, but it is a condition without which we cannot possess and enjoy what Christ hath purchased; that is, he that falls away from the true doctrine of the gospel, proves himself to have no part of the benefits of Christ.

Some errors are, in their own nature, damnable and inconsistent with the state of grace or a fellowship with God, 2 Peter 2. 9; so 2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." Sure it may be said of Arians, Socinians, Papists, Libertines, they have not God, because they abide not in the doctrine of Christ; so Gal. 5.4. Other errors there are, of which I may say, whatsoever they are comparatively, impenitency, and continuing in them, doth condemn, whence it is that the apostle James reckoneth him who errs from the truth to be in a way of death and danger of damnation, James 5.19,20.

Now, the preservatives against wavering, and helps to stedfastness in the faith, are these:
1. Grow in knowledge and circumspection; be not simple as children in understanding. There is "a sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" so speaks the Apostle of those that spread divers and strange doctrines, Eph. 4.14; and Rom. 16.18, he warns us that they do "by good words and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple." Thou hast, therefore, need of the wisdom of the serpent, that thou be not deceived, as well as of the simplicity of the dove, that thou be not a deceiver, Phil. 1. 9,10. Do not rashly engage into any new opinion, much less into the spreading of it. With the well-advised is wisdom. Pythagoras would have his scholars only to hear, and not to speak for five years. Be swift to hear, but not to speak or engage: "Prove all things," and when thou hast proved, then be sure to "hold fast that which is good," 1 Thess. 5.21; Matt. 7.15,17. There was never an heresy yet broached, but under some fair plausible pretence: "beguiling unstable souls," as Peter speaks, 2 Peter 2.14. Prov. 14.15, "The simple believeth every word. Be not like the two hundred that "went in the simplicity of their hearts" after Absalom in his rebellion, not knowing anything, but that he was to pay his vow in Hebron, 2 Sam. 15.11.
2. Grow in grace and holiness, and the love of the truth; for the stability of the mind in the truth, and the stability of the heart in grace, go hand in hand together, Heb. 13. 9. David's rule is good: Psal. 25.12, "What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall ye teach in the way that he shall choose;" which is also Christ's rule, John 7.17, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself;" see also Deut. 11.13,16. Elisha healed the unwholesome waters of Jericho by casting salt into the fountain, 2 Kings 2.21. So must the bitter streams of pernicious errors be healed by getting the salt of mortification and true sanctifying grace in the fountain.
3. Be sure to cleave to thy faithful and sound teachers. The sheep that follow the shepherd are best kept from the wolf. I find the exhortation to stability in the faith joined with the fruitful labours of faithful teachers, Phil. 3.16,17; Heb. 13.7,9. So the Apostle, Eph. 4.11-14, from the work of the ministry draweth this consequence, "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." The Galatians were easily seduced, as soon as they were made to disgust Paul.
4. Watch and be vigilant against the first beginnings of declining, against the first seeds of error, Gal. 5.9. It was "while men slept" that the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and when he had done, went his way, Matt. 13.25. Therefore "watch ye, stand fast in the faith," 1 Cor. 16.12; go hand in hand together.
5. Avoid and withdraw from the authors and spreaders of heresies and dangerous errors, Rom. 16.17; 1 Tim. 6.5; 2 John 10,11; Phil. 3.2. He that would be godly should not use ungodly company, and he that would be orthodox should not use heretical company, unless he have some good hopes to convert some who have erred from the truth, and come into their company only for that end, James 5.19,20. I remember Chrysostom, in divers places, warneth his hearers how much they endangered their souls by going into the Jewish synagogues, and there was a great zeal in the ancient church to keep Christians that were orthodox from the assemblies and company of heretics.
6. Get church discipline established and duly exercised, which is ordained to purge the church from false doctrine, Rev. 2.14,20.
7. "Lean not unto thine own understanding," and "be not wise in thine own eyes," Prov. 3.5,7. Let reason be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10.5. That which made the Antitrinitarians and Socinians fall away from the belief of the trinity of persons in the Godhead, and of the union of the two natures of God and man in the person of Christ, was, because their reason could not comprehend these articles, which is the ground of their opinion professed by themselves. When I speak of captivating reason, I do not mean implicit faith. The eyes of my understanding must be so far opened by the Holy Ghost, that I may know such an article is held forth in Scripture to be believed, and therefore I do believe that it is, though my reason cannot comprehend how it is.
8. Count thy cost, and be well resolved beforehand what it will cost thee to be a disciple of Christ, to be a constant professor of the truth, Luke 14.26-34; Acts 14.22, "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." This is surer than to confirm ourselves with the hopes of a golden age of prosperity, in which we shall feel no affliction.
9. "Search the Scriptures," John 5.39; Acts 17.11. Do not take upon trust new lights from any man, be he never so eminent for parts or for grace, but to the law and the testimony.

The upshot of all is, that we ought to hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, and be steadfast, and even immovable in the truth, and not to give place to the adversaries, no, not for an hour, Gal. 2.4,5. I do not mean pertinacy in the least error, nor a vain presumptuous overweening conceit of our knowledge, to make us despise any light which others may give us from Scripture. Pertinacy is an evil upon the one hand, and to be too tenacious of our own opinions; but that...that levity, inconstancy, wavering, scepticism, is an evil upon the other hand. 2 Thess. 2.2, "Be not soon shaken in mind." &c.

Of Stability and Firmness in the Truth, from Miscellany Questions by George Gillespie.

Reasons for not forsaking the assembling

The account is given of William Mackay, Diarachdcory near Tongue, Sutherland an eminently godly man of the nineteenth-century when Sutherland had many outstanding saints.

"He came one Sabbath to the church of Tongue on a day of drift and snow, during the ministry of old 'Mr. William', a distance of about sixteen miles, and there was no road at that time. After the close of the service the Minister asked him why had ventured out on such a stormy day, when only people in the near neighbourhood were at the service.

In reply, he stated that there were three things that moved him to attend the house of God:
1st- The Lord had given him strength and he considered it his duty to wait on Him in public worship.
2nd - He came to add to the number in the congregation and thus encourage the minister when he knew that many would absent themselves. 3rd-He came so that if the Spirit of God should be moving in the church that day, He might not find his pew empty."

From Records of Grace in Sutherland

Sedgwick on Preaching « James Durham Thesis

This is an excellent quotation from one of the Westminster Divines on true preaching and a true sermon. The true focus is the person and work of Christ.Sedgwick on Preaching « James Durham Thesis

John Kennedy's Leper Isle

Another blog has published the whole of John Kennedy, Dingwall's Leper Isle. This is rather like John Bunyan's The Holy War or The Pilgrim's Progress except set at sea. It is called 'a waking dream'. It was reprinted by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1967. There are various places in the world called Leper Isle.

This is part 1, part 2 and the key to the allegory.

Spiritual Decay

"It is fit,that professors of all sorts should be reminded of these things; for we may see not a few of them under visible decays, without any sincere endeavors after a recovery, who yet please themselves that the root of the matter is in them. It is so, if love of the world, conformity unto it, negligence in holy duties, and coldness in spiritual love, be an evidence of such decays. But let none deceive their own souls; wherever there is a saving principle of grace, it will be thriving and growing unto the end. And if it fall under obstructions, and thereby into decays for a season, it will give no rest or quietness unto the soul wherein it is, but will labor continually for a recovery. Peace in a spiritually-decaying condition, is a soul-ruining security; better be under terror on the account of surprisal into some sin, than be in peace under evident decays of spiritual life." John Owen

The external and internal aspects of the Covenant of Grace

Obadiah Sedgewick (one of the Westminster divines) shows how there is an internal (absolute) and external (conditional) side to the Covenant of Grace. The former is what is graciously effected in the elect. The latter is what those within the visible Church are brought into. This is preached and offered in the Word and Sacraments.

Of the Covenant in special.

I shall now descend to something more special, to show unto you, what that Covenant which God makes between himself and his people.

There are those who distinguish of a twofold Covenant.

1. There is Foedus absolutum, which is such a promise of God, as takes in no stipulation or condition at all, that runs altogether upon absolute terms; such a Covenant was that which God made with Noah, that he would never down the world any more. Gen 9.11. and such a kind of Covenant is that, when God promises to give faith and perseverance unto his elect, Heb. 8.10, &c. Both these Covenants are absolute, and without any condition; there is nothing in them but what is folded up in the promises themselves.

2. Foedus Hypotheticum, which is a gracious promise on God’s part, with an obligation to duty; for although it be natural to God, to recompense any good, as it is to punish any evil; And although man does owe unto God whatsoever God covenants with him for; yet it so pleases his Divine Will thus to deal with us, that in binding of us to duty unto himself, he binds himself in reward unto us, and promises such and such a recompence, upon the condition of such and such a performance.

Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (Printed by Edmund Mottershed, for Adoniram Byfield, and are to be sold by Joseph Cranford, at the Sign of the Castle and Lyon in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1661), 6.

The Fellowship Meeting

Another blog covers the fellowship meeting with helpful links - the meeting is a feature of Highland Communion seasons. Here is a good example of a fellowship meeting in recent memory.

It is important that the meeting is referred to as the fellowship meeting as well as the question (a more Gaelic reference). This is because it has this, not extempore exegesis or exposition, at its heart. It is about personal experience. These Fellowship Meetings probably began in Kiltearn in the 1650s. It began with a practical and experimental purpose and content. The great question concerns the marks of grace. It shows the responsibility and concern of the stronger for the weaker. Fellowship is one of the most abused and trivialised words in evangelicalism. The fellowship meeting points to the real meaning of fellowship which signifies a community sharing and participating in a common life.

Dr Kennedy, Dingwall defends and describes the fellowship meeting well in The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire as follows:

The great object of the fellowship meeting was the mutual comfort and edification of believers, with a special reference to the cases of such, as were exercised with fears as to their interest in Christ. And how was it conducted? At first, only communicants were present; but, latterly, admission became indiscriminate. The minister presides, and, after prayer, praise and the reading of a portion of Scripture, he calk on any one who is anxious to propose a question to the meeting, to do so. This call is responded to by some man who rises, mentions a passage of Scripture describing some feature of the Christian character, and expresses his desire to ascertain the marks of those whom the passage describes, and the various respects in which they may differ from merely nominal Christians. The scope of the passage of Scripture is then opened up by the minister, and the exact import of the question founded upon it is explained. He then calls by name, successively, on such as are of repute for piety, experience, and gifts to "speak to the question." One after another rises, as he is called, states briefly his view of the question, and without attempting either to expound Scripture, or to deliver an exhortation, or venturing to parade his own experience, speaks from the heart what he has felt, and feared, and enjoyed under the power of the truth. Thereafter, the minister sums up all that has been said, correcting, confirming, and expanding as may be necessary, and makes a practical improvement of the whole. The person, who proposed the question, is then usually called to engage in prayer, and, with praise and the benediction, the meeting is closed. Such was the fellowship meeting in the good days of the fathers in Ross-shire.

"The men" seem, to some, to have been taken out of their proper place, when called to address a congregation, and to have assumed work properly and exclusively the minister's. They must be quite ignorant of "the men" and of their work with whom this objection can have any weight. If they were accustomed to expound, or if they attempted to preach, it might be said, that they were stepping out of their proper place, and invading the province of the minister: but they who were worthy of a place among "the men" never attempted to do so. They but spake to one another, of their mutual fears and trials, hopes and joys: and the position, as office-bearers, held by the most of them, and the gifts which the Lord had conferred on them all, entitled them to do so, in the more public position of the fellowship meeting. Never was a godly minister's office less endangered, than when he was countenancing and directing their service in "speaking to the question," and often has the time thus spent by him been, to his own soul, a season of refreshing.

There are many who think, that uneducated persons, such as "the men," could not possibly deliver addresses that might edify their hearers. Those who required "the excellency of speech and of wisdom in order to be pleased, would certainly not be gratified at the fellowship meeting, but those who "desired the sincere milk of the word that" they "might grow thereby," would as certainly be profited. Of such learning, as makes one proud, "the men" had none; but they knew their Bibles as few besides have known them. Their clear view of the Gospel system might bring a blush on the face of some professors of divinity if they heard and understood them; and some doctors, however learned, might sit at their feet, as they spake of the sorrows and the joys of the Christian's life. Some of them were men of distinguished talent, and all their mental vigour, untrammelled by learning, they brought to bear upon the things of God. Never, surely, is there a more attractive exercise of intellect than when, divested of all literary acquirements, it enters directly into "the mysteries of the kingdom," and comes forth in a panoply of Scripture truth. Light from heaven then irradiates all the gifts of the speaker. Traces of learning, mingled with the halo of this light, would be spots of darkness. Some of "the men" were able speakers. Orators they were, without attempting to be so, and utterly unconscious of their gift, who could powerfully affect the feelings of their hearers. Some of them gave utterance to sayings that could not be forgotten, and a few of which would earn a fame for genius in a more public sphere.

Of the question, "How far lay agency may be employed for the edification of the Church," the wisest practical solution has been furnished in the service of the fellowship meeting. It is surely desirable, that, if there are talented and godly men in a congregation, an opportunity should be afforded, for securing to others, the benefit of those gifts, with which the Lord has endowed them. If He has made them "apt to teach," an opportunity to teach should be given them by the church. This should be provided, so as not to invade the province of the ordained teacher, and so as to conserve and support the authority of his office. By no summary process ought a man to be converted into a preacher, however shining his gifts, and however eminent his godliness. But is he therefore to be kept silent? May no opportunity be given him to exhort his brethren, publicly as well as privately, so as to secure, to the Church at large, the benefit of his stores of Christian knowledge and experience? All these conditions have been met, in the service of the fellowship meeting. There an opportunity, to exercise their gifts, for the good of the Church, and without the least prejudice to the position and influence of the minister, was given to such as the Lord had qualified. How strange it is, that some, who neglect to avail them selves of such an arrangement, and who are disposed to frown upon it where it has been adopted, should not hesitate to exalt into the position, even of evangelists, neophytes, with crude views of the doctrines of the Gospel, owing subjection to no ecclesiastical authority, and furnishing no security whatever for the prudence and the purity of their doctrine and their life.

The service, in which "the men" were employed, was useful as a test. In the good days of the fathers, the discernment of the Church was keen, and very rarely could a man, who was a stranger to a life of godliness, be approved at the fellowship meeting. Satan required to do his utmost in making a passable hypocrite in these days. He sometimes, even then, succeeded in foisting a counterfeit on the confidence of the Church, but it was not often that he tried it. Usually, "of the rest durst no man join himself to them." Through this ordeal the eldership had to pass, ere they found a place in a session, over which a man of God presided. It would be well if this kind of trial were universal. The application of such a test might, in some cases, allow no session at all; but it may be fairly questioned whether this is a valid objection to its use. Now, and in some places, let a man's religion be all on the outside of him, if it is only a decent garb to look at from a distance, and if he is a man of influence, or of money, or of talent, this is quite enough to win for him an elder's place. An uneducated, but godly and praying elder, would be better than a host of such men as he; but better still, the man, in whom the gifts and the influence of the one were sanctified by the grace given to the other.

The offence of blasphemy

On 8 May 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales, with effect from 8 July 2008. Parliament cannot abolish the 3rd Commandment so easily as they would think, however, and as 'the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain' so will he not hold guiltless those that have abused their delegated power to protect and reward the evil doer in this way.

The Blasphemy Act 1698 declared it illegal for any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, to state the following:

- a denial that the members of the Holy Trinity were God.
- an assertion that there is more than one god.
- a denial of the truth of the Christian religion to be true.
- a denial of the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority.

Those denying the Trinity were already deprived of the benefit of the Act of Toleration by an act of 1688. The first offence resulted in being rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust. The second offense resulted in being rendered incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and three years imprisonment without bail.

It was rarely applied: an excessively short statute of limitations allowed for a very short time after the offense for lodging a formal complaint; a similar limitation applied to bringing the case to trial. It followed from February 1698 when a committee of the house of Commons requested William III to suppress 'all pernicious books and pamphlets which contain in them impious doctrines'. By the law of Scotland, as it originally stood, the punishment of blasphemy was death, a penalty imposed on Thomas Aikenhead in Edinburgh in 1697. By an act of 1825, amended in 1837, blasphemy was made punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843 but technically the law remains in force in Scotland.

The English act (exactly 310 years old) was directed against apostates at the beginning of the deist movement in England, particularly after the 1696 publication of John Toland's book, "Christianity Not Mysterious." "The reasonableness of Christianity" by John Locke was also in view. Both books were burnt by the public hangman. It was said that Toland's book took out all the mystery and left no Christianity at all. Momentum for action had been building since the 'Proposals for a National Reformation of Manners in 1694 'All men agree that atheism and prophaneness never got such an high ascendant as at this day. A thick gloominess hath overspread our horizon, and our light looks like the everining of the world.'

Daniel Defoe commented on the climate of skepticism: 'No age since the founding and forming of the Christian Church was ever like, in open avowed Atheism, blasphemies and heresies to the age we now live in'. One deist wrote that if Jesus Christ was responsible for founding churches 'I think the old Romans did him right in punishing him with the death of a slave'.

Francis Atterbury gave a similarly gloomy assessment:
'Heresies of all kinds, scepticisim, deism ahd atheism itself over-run us like a deluge...the Triinity has been...openly denied...a,ll mysteries in religion have been decried as impositions on men's understandings, and nothing is admitted as an article of faith but what we can fully and perfectly comprehend'

Another assessment shows the similarity of our age to the latter end of the 17th century 'we are fallen into those dregs of time wherein atheism and irreligion,seidition and debauchery seem to divide the world between them'. How much more is this the case now, and how much more proportionately do we need a blasphemy act to be retained.

The Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished the offences of the Blasphemy Act 1698,
and blasphemy became a purely common law matter. Lord Denning said 'we
all thought it was obsolescent'. In 1976 Mary Whitehouse, started a private prosecution of a blasphemous homosexual poem. During the House of Lords appeal Lord Scarman said that "I do not subscribe to the view that the common law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in modern law. (...) The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the kingdom." The conviction was followed by a endeavours to abolish the crime of blasphemy.

We ought to take special note of the reasons that are annexed to the third commandment. The Larger Catechism identifies these as:
'these words, The Lord thy God, and, For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain, are, because he is the Lord and our God, therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us; especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment; albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men'. The last two clauses should be clearly emphasised in the light of current events.

Are evangelicals becoming liberal?

A recent Time Magazine Article reports on the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life which last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me." Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity's path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals' fundamental tenets.

This shows how far evangelicalism is from a sound bedrock of confessional truth drawn from Scripture. The Westminster Confession states:

…men, not professing the Christian religion, [cannot] be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested [Westminster Confession of Faith, 10.4]

Robert Reymond writes against religious inclusivism here.

J.G. Vos was a good observer of other religions in "A Christian Introduction to Religions of the World" - he is very perceptive on Islam. He also has a good article on the Good Elements in False Religions. But we must remember that the counterfeit requires to have some resemblance to the truth to be successful. Here is a good article on the exclusivity of Christianity.

Evangelical fears and compromises

Various commentators from within evangelicalism are coming to the conclusion that has been obvious for a rather long time, that evangelicalism's greatest fear is at the heart of all its compromises. This is the fear of not being relevant or to use a more realistic term, fashionable. David F. Wells in his latest book 'The Courage to be Protestant' writes: 'Frankly, there is no judgment more to be feared than this: you are now passé. That weighs more heavily even than words coming from the great white throne at the end of time. Imagine that! Passé.'

He also writes in a collection of essays 'Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church': 'Evangelicals today are fearful, but they are fearful of all the wrong things. They are deeply apprehensive about becoming obsolete, of being left behind, so to speak, of being passed by, and of not being relevant'.(p. 48) It fits very neatly with marketing theory and practice which, through a very thin veneer, is driving much of the trends within evangelicalism.

Os Guinness has written a book 'Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance', he says that this desire to be fashionable (culturally relevant) is exactly why Christians are now becoming marginalized. Being fashioable means creating trendy worship services, writing books about how Christ can be seen in current movies, or mirroring hot bands playing on MTV. He says in a recent interview 'Evangelicalism has never chased relevance more determinedly than it does now. And yet, we've never been more irrelevant'. This undermines the authority of Scripture, and a loss of identity and continuity with the Church historically.

Wells observes that the fear of being irrelevant and unfashionable has been 'transferred' from liberals.
'This, of course, was the fear that haunted the older generation of Protestant liberals, so many of whom began their lives in evangelical homes. They were overwhelmed by the need to be relevant to the culture...Their conversation partner was the Enlightenment.

This lesson, however, is entirely lost on most evangelicals today. The reason is partly that they are treading a different path and so they do not see the parallels. Theirs is not the accommodation to high culture, as was the liberals'.

That culture was suffused with intellectual pride and humanism, with rationalism and hostility to Christian faith. It is now dying. The Enlightenment, from which much of it arose, has all but collapsed, as has the Christianity that had made itself into an ally.

The parallels between these older liberals and today's evangelicals are not in the culture to which they are accommodating but in the process of accommodation. Behind each is the same mind-set. The difference is only in what is being accommodated. And the dangers are all concealed beneath the apparent innocence of the experiment.

The fact is, however, that evangelical Christianity today is as endangered by its postmodern dance partner as the earlier liberals were by their Enlightenment partner'. (p. 49)

My view on this as evidenced in the secularisation of the Bible through inferior translation in the 20th century is here.

Jacob as a type of Christ

Recently someone mentioned Jacob as a type of Christ. We know that there is much in Jacob that was sinful and certainly could never be typical of Christ. We must look at the types, however, in terms of their office and public role rather than their personal characteristics. Jonathan Edwards says in one of his letters that 'the word of God came to Jacob, as a type of Christ, 1 Kings 18:31'. the latter verse highlights Jacob's new name of Israel, this is also a name used for Christ in prophecy. It was promised to Jacob that he would become 'a multitude of people'(Genesis 28:3). In the Greek translation the Septuagaint, the word is ecclesia which is the Greek for Church. Israel means 'prince with God' and Christ is a Prince and Saviour, the prince of the kings of the earth.

Jacob was a type of Christ in his priestly office especially in Genesis 31:54. Before Aaron was High Priest the patriarchs as heads of households were priests and offered sacrifices which was afterward reflected in the passover where the head of the household sacrificed the lamb. Genesis 31:54 is also in the context of a covenant being ratified through a covenant meal see Exodus 18:12 and Ex 24.

We should look at the covenant blessing of Jacob (Genesis 27:29) and remember that Christ confirmed the promises made to the patriarchs in these covenants (Rom 15:8). The blessing 'Let people serve thee' and 'nations bow down to thee' is prophetic of Christ and only fulfilled in Him (Dan. 7:14; Zech. 8:23; Is. 60:12;Ps. 72:11). He also says 'Be Lord over thy brethren' and 'Let thy mother's sons bow down to thee' which is fulfilled in Christ (Phil. 2:11; James 1:1 1 Cor. 15:7). Jacob speaks of 'the children which God hath graciously given thy servant'; similarly to Christ who says 'Behold I and the children thou hast given me' (Heb 2:13). There is also a reflection of the love of Christ for His Church in that of Jacob for Rachel.

Sometimes particular identifications of typology can be controversial. Patrick Fairbairn in his volumes on Typology takes the Puritan Thomas Taylor to task for
some of the seventeen instances that he discovered between Jacob and Christ. Fairbairn said that Taylor does not scruple 'to swell the number by occasionally taking in acts of sin, as well as circumstances of an altogether trivial nature. Thus, Jacob s being a supplanter of his brother, is made to represent Christ's supplanting death, sin, and Satan; his being obedient to his parents in all things, Christ s subjection to His heavenly Father and His earthly parents ; his purchasing his birthright by red pottage, and obtaining the blessing by presenting savoury venison to his father, clothed in Esau's garment, Christ's purchasing the heavenly inheritance to us by His red blood, and obtaining the blessing by offering up the savoury meat of His obedience, in the borrowed garment of our nature, etc.'

Fairbairn says that 'the analogy they found upon was a merely superficial resemblance appearing between things in the Old and other things in the New Testament Scriptures. But resemblances of this sort are so extremely multifarious, and appear also so different according to the point of view from which they are contemplated, that it was obviously possible for any one to take occasion through them to introduce the most frivolous conceits, and to caricature rather than vindicate the grand theme of the Gospel'.

There are no doubt, however, many more correspondences between Christ and Jacob that I have not mentioned above which do not come under Fairbairn's censure.

The Fashion of Feminism

Earlier this month the death of the fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent was mourned. In his personal life he was promiscuous, bisexual, a drug addict and alcoholic which induced depression. In his work he was extremely influential.

The Guardian claimed that he "reworked the rules of fashion defining how modern women dressed". He has been described as "the French fashion designer who created a bold new dress code for women during the feminist revolution of the 1970s". The news agency Agence France-Presse elaborated on how he "changed the silhouette of 20th century woman with a daring new dress code". This refers to the fact that he invented and popularised the trouser-suit for women. The silhouette refers to the fact that gender distinction could be clearly indicated as it is in symbol form by the silhouette of a woman in a skirt and a man in trousers. His business partner comments. "He was the first to put women in pants, the first to put them in tuxedos, the first to put them in masculine clothes". “He transformed society and he transformed women.” The trouser suit has been hailed as the real birth of the feminist revolution of the 1970s and "what fashion gave to feminism." “Feminism was built on the trouser suit”. As commentators have pointed out he introduced this revolution when the French academic feminists were airing their views. Although there had been a similar expression of feminism by some women in the 1920s it was in the 1970s that feminism became truly popular. There were certain reasons for this. A Russian news agency points to the context of "massive popular cultural shifts of the 1960s, with sexual liberation, women's unprecedented economic freedom, and the rise of feminism".

In 1970 the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland took account of these sea changes in society in its rebellion against God's Word. Its resolution (reaffirmed in 2003) noted that there "is evidence that the "permissiveness" of the age has influenced the Church. In particular this is the case in the dress of the women, and in the hair styles of both men and women.

The Word of God demands of women that they be dressed in modest apparel, and the Synod urge the women of the Church to give heed to this counsel. Not only does it require modesty of dress but also distinction in dress between the sexes. The practice of men and women wearing clothes which obliterates this distinction is quite contrary to God's Word and expressly declared to be an abomination to Him. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut 22:5).

The Church must therefore condemn these practices as contrary to God's Word and direct her people to seek the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to enable them to live unspotted in the world."

Several articles in the Young People's Magazine give further guidance.
"Such also is the spirit of feminism, which tries to destroy all God’s distinctions between man and woman (Ephesians 5:21-32, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 1 Peter 3:1-7). Holy Scripture also makes a clear distinction between male and female in dress: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). As John Calvin points out, this text is one of around 24 in Exodus to Deuteronomy which enlarge on God’s teaching of the Seventh Commandment. It is exceedingly solemn to despise any of God’s precepts. The Lord Jesus endured such suffering as no tongue can tell (Hebrews 2:10) when the wrath of God fell upon Him because of a broken law, to which He gave perfect obedience (Romans 5:19). That is our only hope of eternal life. Feminism is all about removing God-given distinctions between men and women. The items of clothing that, throughout Western society, have distinguished between men and women for hundreds of years are trousers and skirts. This is a clear distinction, still universally used today on buildings. God has made a clear distinction between men and women, but feminism rejects God and His Word. Those who fear God wish to cleave to His precepts. Thus, in their walk, and especially in His house, they honour Him by acknowledging this God-given distinction. “Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” We grieve the Holy Spirit when we show some outward attachment to His people while following the fashions of this world. “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4). How solemn to hear one and another say, “Well, X does it”...We are safe only when we follow Christ and His Word. Let God be true and every man a liar."

Another article by Rev Neil Ross addresses the issue.
"It is true that God looks on the heart, while man looks upon the outward appearance. But the outward appearance does matter; it is part of a Christian lifestyle. Take clothing, for example: certain ways of dressing can lead to sin, and so we should remember some Scripture principles.

First, Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches us that there ought to be a distinction between male and female in their clothing: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God”. Changes in fashion do not cancel out this principle. It was in the 1960s, says a writer on the history of fashion, “that the distinctions between clothing made for men and that made for women became less and less obvious”. The principle remains however: God has ordained that there be a clear distinction between the sexes. In our culture, the dress or skirt is still viewed as the distinctly female garment."

Why are the 10 Commandments addressed in the singular?

This is an important question. The original Hebrew is in the singular which is accurately reflected in the Authorised Version "Thou shalt not..." You is plural whereas Thou is singular. It does not say It does not say, "Do not kill" but "Thou shalt not kill".

Jewish writers and Rabbis have given many answers to this such as that they stood 'as one person of one heart', see here and here and here. For instance the first century AD Jewish writer Philo writes: "But why are the commandments formulated in the singular (Thou), when a multitude was present? Readers of the Holy Scriptures may learn from this that each individual who keeps the law and obeys God is as precious as the whole Nation, nay more, as the whole world. Another reason is that commands and prohibitions are more impressive if addressed to each individual in the audience." It highlights individual responsibility.

No doubt there is also something to be said for the fact that Israel is seen as the son of God, see here.

John Willison asks:
Q. Why doth this and the rest of the commands still run in the singular number, Thou, and not You?
A. Because God would have every man to notice the directions thereof as particularly as if they were spoken to himself by name.

It is "thou" not "ye," because each person is addressed separately as a distinct moral agent responsible to God for keeping the law. Willison also notes: "The Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, which were solemnly delivered to the people of Israel from Mount Sinai, do contain the moral law; being a fixed and perpetual rule of righteousness, which God hath given to be observed by all mankind, in all ages and periods, to the end of the world." The Larger Catechism reminds us:
"That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin."

The puritan Thomas Watson answers our question:
"Because the commandment concerns every one, and God would have each one take it as spoken to him by name. Though we are forward to take privileges to ourselves, yet we are apt to shift off duties from ourselves to others; therefore the commandment is in the second person, Thou and Thou, that every one may know that it is spoken to him, as it were, by name." Some have said that we ought to put our own name as it were into the commandment in order to recognise our own responsibility.

James Ussher in his Body of Divinity answers the question as to why the commandments are addressed in the singular:
1. Because God being without partiality, speaketh to all men alike; as well the rich as poor, high as low.
2. Because no man should put the commandments of God from himself, as though they did not concern him: but every particular man should apply them to himself as well as if God had spoken to him by name. Whence we gather, that God wisely preventeth a common abuse amongst men: which is to esteem that which is spoken unto all men, to be (as it were) spoken to none. As you shall have it common amongst men to say and confess, that God is just and merciful, and that he commandeth this, and forbiddeth that: and yet they usually so behave themselves, that they shift the matter to the general, as if it did not belong unto them in particular; and as if they
notwithstanding might live as they list. And therefore every man is to judge and esteem that God speaketh in the law to him in particular; and is accordingly to be affected therewith.

We are addressed individually by God as sovereign. This is because as the puritan John Dod put it "self [is] our chief idol: So that every carnal man sets up himself, he does nothing but seek and serve himself and therefore is his own idol, and another god to himself".

There is also intimacy in the individual singular and personal address "thou". Thomas Boston shows that when we see the context of redemption in the Preface to the Ten Commandments we see the commandments in their correct light for the believer. "The ten commandments were not given to the Israelites as a covenant of works, but in the way of the covenant of grace, and under that covert. Ye saw it was Jesus the Mediator that spoke these, Heb. 12:24-26. Amongst all the reasons there is not one of terror; but the sweet savour of gospel-grace."

"All true obedience to the ten commandments now must run in the channel of the covenant of grace, being directed to God as our God in that covenant, Deut. 28:58. This is to fear that glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD. And so legal obedience is no obedience at all. This obedience is performed not for righteousness, but to testify our love to the Lord our Righteousness; not in our own strength, but in that of our Lord God and Redeemer; not to be accepted for its own worth, but for the sake of a Redeemer’s merits; not out of fear of hell, or hope to purchase heaven, but out of love and gratitude to him who has delivered us from hell, and purchased heaven and everlasting happiness for us."

"So far is the state of the saints from being a state of sinful liberty, that there are none so strongly bound to obedience as they, and that by the strongest of all bonds, those of love and gratitude, arising from the amazing and wonderful obedience and satisfaction which he has performed for them. So that the love of Christ will sweetly and powerfully constrain them to run the way of his commandments; for his commandments are not grievous, and in the keeping of them is a great reward. They will love him, because he has first loved them; and his love has flowed out to them in the crimson streams of their dear Redeemer’s blood, by which their sins are expiated, and their guilt atoned. And those to whom much is forgiven, will certainly love much."

"God might have required of us obedience by his mere will, without giving any other reason; and in that case, men had been bound to give it at their peril. But how much sweeter is the command, and agreeable what he demands, when he enforces the equirement he makes by such engaging motives, as that he is the Lord, a being possessed of all possible perfection, of every glorious attribute and excellency, the author of all other beings, and all the amiable qualities and attracting xcellencies of which they are possessed; that he is our God, related to us by a covenant, which he hath made with his own Son as our Surety and Saviour, and which is brought near to us in the gospel, that we may enter into the bond thereof, and the righteousness of which is brought near unto us, who are stout-hearted and far from righteousness, that we may accept thereof, and so be delivered from condemnation and wrath? How agreeable and ravishing is it to reflect, that he incites and prompts us to obedience, not by the authority of his absolute sovereignty over us, and undoubted propriety in us, but by the inviting and attracting consideration of the great deliverance he has wrought for us, of which the deliverance from the Egyptian bondage was a bright type!

Can we reflect on the great salvation wrought for us by Jesus Christ, by which we were saved from all the horrors of sin and hell, rescued from the power of Satan, and delivered from the present evil world, and the pollutions thereof; can we reflect on these great and glorious benefits, which afford astonishment to men and angels, and our hearts not glow with the warmest fire of love and gratitude to him who hath done such excellent things for us? Can we hesitate a moment to say, good is thy will, O God, just and holy are thy laws, and we will cheerfully obey what thou commandest us?"

We wonder why the modern versions see fit to obliterate the fact that we are personally and individually addressed in the commandments. They translate it as "you" and not "thou". Yet when we think that the Ten Commandments that were written by the finger of God and that He wrote in the singular what a fearful thing it is to alter this. The Lord also commanded Moses to keep the second set of Ten Commandments safe in the ark for a perpetual testimony (Deut 10:5). Does this not give particular reverence and care for God's written words? Why then have modern versions showed such contempt for this way in which God makes His sovereign will known?

There is in the Authorised Version a Bible that contains the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm as the man in the street knows them only. There is a Bible that carries a weight of authority and stirs a wealth of association for a significant proportion of our population. It is a Bible which alone addresses them as singular and as individuals in the way that God did at Mount Sinai.

Translation and the ministry of the word

Reformed theologians understood that while translation was necessary, and while they could convey the Word of God from the original Hebrew and Greek in substance, it could not be translated absolutely, perfectly, or exhaustively. This doctrine is classically expressed by Francis Turretin (cf. Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture trans. J.W. Beardslee III, Grand Rapids, 1981) but in the British post-Reformation context it may be discerned in the preface to the Authorised Version of 1611, ‘The Translators to the Reader’. Here it is asserted that in the sixteenth century English translations, ‘all is sound for substance’ (p.19). Slightly before this, the Elizabethan English Presbyterian Thomas Cartwright, responded to the criticisms levelled by the Roman Catholic translators of the Rheims New Testament with the tenet that ‘the title…the worde of God’ used in relation to translations ‘agreeth only to the truth of God, which hath also the frame of his words’ (Answer to the Preface to the Rhemish Testament, London, 1602, p.102). Like Calvin, he favoured essentially preserving the word order (T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1971, p.102) in order to convey the majesty of the Scriptures. Calvin was well aware that Biblical Greek was not classical Greek: it was in fact more powerful, ‘the force of the truth of Sacred Scripture is manifestly too powerful to need the art of words’ (Institutes, I.viii.1). That is to say, it does not need to be revised according to classical taste in rhetoric and elegant style, it has a simple, clear and powerful style of its own.

It was widely recognised amongst the Reformed that preaching is able to supplement the deficiency of translations, and, moreover, that, as Beardslee explains, preaching ‘continues the work of Bible translation; hence the importance of an educated ministry’ (ibid. p.154, n.3). In their high view of preaching the Reformers held it to be the Word of God. Bullinger enunciates it in the clearest terms: ‘praedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei’ (the Word of God preached is in fact the Word of God) (quoted John R. Knott, The Sword of the Spirit: Puritan Responses to the Bible, Chicago, 1980, p.50). Likewise Calvin said that ‘[t]he Word of God goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise goeth out of the mouth of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven but employs men as his instruments’ (quoted Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, London, 1953, p.82). We read of Ezra and his colleagues that ‘they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading’ (Nehemiah 8:8).

Clearly, the Reformers were not claiming either ex cathedra infallibility or immediate inspiration for themselves as their Roman Catholic and Anabaptist opponents respectively asserted. The distinction between the substantial authority of translations and the total verbal authority of the original is perhaps helpful here. Preaching, inasmuch as it represented the Word of God faithfully, could in fact be termed the word of God. A similar distinction was made at the Westminster Assembly by George Gillespie, who held that truths established by logical deduction, that is ‘good and necessary consequence from scripture’ should be regarded as authoritative truth (cp. WCF I.vi and A treatise of the Miscellany questions, Edinburgh, 1649).

The Westminster Confession asserted ‘the majesty of the style’ of Scripture, an epithet that reflected Calvin’s emphasis. Thomas Cartwright likewise spoke of the ‘maiestie of th’authentical copies in the Greek’ (op. cit., p.93), while the discerning preface to the 1611 AV identifies the ‘perspicuity, gravity, majesty of the original Hebrew’ (p.21). William Perkins therefore recommended that pulpit speech be ‘simple and perspicuous, fit both for the peoples understanding and to express the Majestie of the Spirit’ (The Arte of Prophesying, quoted Knott, p.50 - my emphasis). In other words preaching should reflect the majesty of the Scriptures and should aim together with translation at least to be an echo of it.

The Westminster Directory of Publick Worship used similar phrasing in recommending that the minister ought to preache ‘Gravely, as becometh the word of God’ and in requiring him to abstain from ‘an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases...sparingly citing sentences of ecclesiastical or other human writers, ancient or modern’. William Perkins had asserted that ‘[h]umane wisdome must be concealed, whether it be in the matter of the sermon, or in the setting forth of the words: because the preaching of the word is the Testimonie of God, and the profession of the knowledge of Christ not of human skill’, therefore a preacher must not ‘tickle the itching eares of his auditorie with fine ringing sentences of the Fathers but observe an admirable plainness and an admirable powerfulness’ (quoted Owen Watkins, The Puritan Experience, London, 1972, p.7). Preaching was to echo the plain powerfulness of the Scriptures themselves and to be informed by close study, in other words it must correspond to a large extent with translation.

In this way, the Divines maintained the careful balance set by the Refomers and their heirs that required learning on the part of a minister with the important qualification that it should not be paraded in the pulpit. They ‘presupposed (according to the rules for ordination) that the minister of Christ is in some measure gifted for so weighty a service, by his skill in the original languages, and in such arts and sciences as are handmaid unto divinity...all which he is to make use of and improve in his private preparations, before he deliver in publick what he hath provided’. Samuel Rutherford supplied the homely but pithy aphorism, ‘the pot may be used in the bilyng but not brought in with the porridge’ (quoted, R.S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord, Edinburgh, 1985, p.365).

Certain sectarians in England, particularly leading Antinomians, opposed these views at the time. William Dell and John Webster attacked the emphasis upon learning the original Greek and Hebrew. Webster held forth in his tract Academarium Examinem that there could be no teachers, since only the Spirit could teach anyone. ‘To this I know it will be objected’, he said, ‘[t]hat schools teach the knowledge of tongues, without which the Scriptures (being written in the Hebrew and Greek) cannot be rightly translated, expounded, nor interpreted: and therefore it is necessary that Schools and Academies should teach these as properly and mainly conducible to this end’. Webster, however, could concede nothing to such objections, in his opinion languages had been changed and altered as ‘fashions and garments’ and in fact, whoever relies upon a translator is the same as anyone that depends upon a teacher (London, 1654, pp.6-7). Where this left the individual is hard to distinguish. Dell on the other hand simply rejected learning as necessary or prerequisite for the ministry (Christ’s Spirit a Christian’s Strength, London, 1651, p.22).

Rutherford took it in hand to reply to these directly, he emphasised the importance of all Christians having access to the Scriptures but not without what the Confession calls ‘a due use of the ordinary means’ for interpretation (I. vii). The grammatical-historical method could not be dismissed by appeal to the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, although the illumination of the Spirit was of course important. Rutherford could not see that those who ‘goe from weaving, sowing, carpentarie, shoo-making to the pulpit...being voyd of all learning, tongues, logick, arts, sciences, and the literall knowledge of the Scripture’ could make the dangerous claims that they made and allege a direct calling from Christ (A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist, London, 1648, vol. i, p.44-45). As Reformed theologians always emphasised, there must be a final appeal to the Hebrew and Greek, and there it was possible to refute heresies and ‘burie them by the power of the Word’. If the authority of ministers using the proper means of interpretation was rejected and ‘if interpretations be left free to every man’ chaos would ensue inevitably in ‘millions of faiths with millions of senses, and so no faith at all’ (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, London, 1649, p.28 & 32).

According to this view as well as that of the Directory, the minister is a specialist engaged in reproducing and applying the message of the Scriptures, or preaching. The minister is a specialist in the Scriptures and must be entirely acquainted with them. J. Gresham Machen, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, in an article entitled defends this principle powerfully ‘The Minister and his Greek Testament’. ‘[W]hatever else the preacher need not know, he must know the Bible; he must know it at first hand, and be able to interpret and defend it. Especially while doubt remains in the world as to the great central question, who more than the ministers should engage in the work of resolving such doubt - by intellectual instruction even more than by argument?’ The obvious conclusion, however, is that ‘this work can be undertaken to best advantage only by those who have an important pre-requisite for the study in a knowledge of the original languages upon which a large part of the discussion is based’ (The Banner of Truth, 103, 4/1972, pp.21-23).

The translators of the Authorised Version possessed these qualifications to an extraordinary degree. Some such as Miles Smith were so conversant in Hebrew that when called upon for the public reading of Scripture on one occasion he produced a small Hebrew bible without vowel points and read from it in ‘the English tongue plainely and fully’. The Westminster Form of Church Government had comparably high standards and required candidates for ordination to be examined by ‘reading the Hebrew and Greek Testaments and rendering some portion of some into Latin’. The problem is that (speaking in the context of the last two centuries) the university or the Academy has taken biblical studies away from the Church particularly with higher criticism and its results. Specialisation in the Scriptures no longer seems to serve preaching at all. Most mainstream evangelical preaching is remarkable if it achieves any depth of continuous concentration upon the Bible at all. While there is no need to introduce learning in itself one feels that learning must be of no real use in the preparation of such discourses.

Today, there is a priestly caste of academics speaking their own language to themselves and these ‘Biblical scholars have rather successfully convinced many in the community of believers that only they, the biblical scholars, can really appreciate the Bible. They are the only ones who can determine what it means. The rest of the community must sit up and listen to the biblical scholars explain what the Bible means’ (T.J. Keegan, Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, New York, 1985, p.9). Yet this coterie has produced no collective consensus on the meaning of Scripture in the way that Rutherford envisaged synods of ministers achieving and as was indeed the case in the great Reformed confessions and standards. The work of interpretation, however, ‘cannot be turned over to a few professors whose work is of interest only to themselves, but must be undertaken energetically by spiritually-minded men throughout the Church’ (Machen, op. cit., p.23).

The Church's Guardianship of the Oracles of God

The Westminster Confession, in its opening chapter emphasises that the Scriptures have been entrusted to the Church by the Lord, in order to ‘declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world’. Although the ‘authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God’, ‘We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style’ etc.

Chapter 25 speaks of the ‘catholick visible church’, unto which ‘Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God’. This connection suggests that the guardianship of the Scriptures within the Church rests especially with the ministry, one may assume that the order is significant: to the Church the ministry is given, to the ministry the oracles and ordinances are specially entrusted. One of the proof texts here is a covenant promise in Isaiah 59:21 that seems to tie these elements together in saying ‘My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed , saith the LORD from henceforth and for ever’. The Confession does not explicitly draw our attention there but in speaking of the oracles of God we are reminded of I Peter 4:11, ‘If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God’, which seems to indicate the principle that preaching should echo the Scripture. Another passage that is quite clear, moreover, is Acts 7:38, which speaks of ‘the church in the wilderness’ ‘who received the lively oracles to give unto us’.

The Larger Catechism (Q156) together with the Directory of Publick Worship and the FPCG restrict the public reading of Scriptures to ministers. This is defended by proving that ‘the priests and Levites in the Jewish church were trusted with the publick reading of the word’ (Deut 31:9-11, Neh. 8:1-3, 13 & 9:3-5). The Divines concluded that the New Testament ministers correspond to the Priests and Levites (an interpretation that went back at least to the Second Book of Discipline in Scotland) ‘the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the Law’. The basis for this was in Isaiah 66:21 and Matthew 23:34, where this identification is made, ‘under the names of Priests and Levites to be continued under the gospel are meant evangelical pastors’.

The Divines were clearly against any idea of a sacrificing priesthood and did not wish ministers to be known by the title of priest, but they recognised a typical correspondence which may be supplemented by texts such as II Chronicles 15:3& 17:7-9, Malachi 2:4&7, Micah 3:1, 1 Leviticus 10:11, Isaiah 30:20 and Malachi 3:3, since these texts emphasise the teaching responsibility of the priest and Levite and its future restoration under Christ. The Priests and Levites were the scribes of Scripture and received the deposit of the law in the Tabernacle (Deut 31:25-26, 1 Sam. 10:25, Deut 17:18, I Chron 2:55 ), during days of persecution, the priests kept the written word safely in the Temple (II Kings 22:8). ‘The priests lips should keep knowledge’ (Mal. 2:7), the very word of God should be stored upon his tongue: surely this is something of what ‘holding fast the faithful word’ means (Titus 1:9). The idea of the preacher as steward and guardian of the truth is of course well developed in the Pastoral Epistles (ITim. 1:3-5 &18-20, ch.4:7&14, ch.5:21, ch.6:12-14, II Tim. 1:13&14, ch.2:15, ch.3:14-16, ch.4:15).

This inference of guardianship has tremendous significance for the responsibilities of the minister as well as that of the role of bible translation. The Church has handed