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.
Showing posts with label Church Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church Government. Show all posts
Friday, June 05, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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 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.
Friday, March 20, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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"
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"
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
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 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
Friday, September 26, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 05, 2008
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."
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."
Friday, May 19, 2006
mistaken assumptions about the Church
In the current climate of evangelical indifferentism there is a vital necessity of regulating our doctrine of the Church and its government by Scripture alone or establishing what is of divine right and authority. We must be clear that we have been provided with the revealed will of God
concerning the Church in the Scriptures. We are confined to express statement and command, approved example, or to what these entail, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory...is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture" (WCF I.6, 2 Tim. 3:16). We are not permitted
to govern the Church in our own wisdom, instituting that which is right in our own eyes for this would deny Christ His headship over His own Church. In matters of "ordinances" in the Church, there is a single definite will of God (1 Cor. 11:2, 16 &23).
What is meant by "good and necessary consequence" is not human wisdom but "reason captivated and subdued to the obedience of Christ" (George Gillespie). The consequence must be necessary, that is to say it must be demanded by a relevant Scripture passage. This means taking premises stated in the Scripture and using sanctified reason in order to draw their
inexorable conclusions which although not expressly stated in a particular verse are nevertheless entirely warranted as the conclusions of such a process. The doctrine of the Trinity (besides others) belongs to this method of using the Scriptures.
Some in our day will deny this application of the regulative principle. In fact they do not wish to apply the principle much at all except perhaps in the area of doctrinal teaching in order to maintain some sort of deference to the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Most evangelical doctrinal statements claim to regard the Bible as the final authority in all matters of belief and practice, which actually entails a wider application of that doctrine whether they acknowledge this or not. The attitude has prevailed for a lengthy period in evangelicalism that there is a simple gospel to be safeguarded in the Scriptures but nothing else much matters. We
now live in a day when that "simple gospel" is, however, no longer purely scriptural in the mainstream of evangelical proclamation. Evangelicalism as David Wells has shown in No Place for Truth no longer has a theology: "Being evangelical has come to mean simply that one has had a certain kind of religious experience that gives colour to the private aspects of daily life,
but in which few identifiable theological elements can be discerned or, as it turns out, are necessary...It is enough for them to know that Christ somehow died for people" (p.131).
In a day of pragmatism and simply doing what works rather than what has Scriptural authority, it is anathema to the secularised ideology of evangelicalism to suggest that we should be bound by Scripture and its principles. Scripture is to bind us as little as possible. This is in fact an old battle that had to be faced squarely at the Westminster Assembly and during the whole post-reformation era. There were members of the Assembly that sought to defend the old Anglican view that gave "indifferent things" such as Church government to the monarch so that they could control the church, this is sometimes called Erastianism after Erastus who articulated the theoretical basis. Thomas Coleman was one of the Erastian Westminster divines, although their views were not prevalent in the eventual documents of the Assembly, they made themselves heard, as when Coleman preached to Parliament (July 1645) that the Assembly's agenda ought to be "Establish as few things by divine right, as well can be".
Divine right or jus divinum meant scriptural warrant. But if we do not give the authority to the Divine scriptures we give it instead to men, the king or individuals, human reason or prejudice or mere pragmatism and cultural influence. Although Coleman's principle may seem plausible it was crafted to serve his own agenda: he made it clear in the same sermon that the only thing that he wanted to establish by divine right was the King's/Parliament's authority by divine right. The attitude of the Scots commissioners to the Assembly on the other hand was "establish as much as possible by divine warrant" - it is in fact a stark choice, God's or man's authority.
It is necessary to be keenly aware of the other false assumptions that are most powerful and prevalent in the midst of these issues. Biblical studies has been under the influence of what are basically evolutionary assumptions for the last century and a half. The assumption of nineteenth-century liberalism, most notably represented by Friedrich Schleiermacher and Adolf Harnack was that religion evolved from polytheism through to monotheism and was becoming ever more rational. Schleiermacher's development was to make God simply a principle rather than a person, and to replace the Scriptures with "religious consciousness" as divine revelation. Thus the whole of religion became essentially subjective:the attributes of God were merely a
symbolical way of expressing aspects of "religious consciousness" such as the feeling of dependence. An individualistic religion like this, deemed the Church to be not strictly necessary, except as a "mere social centre, a human institution rather than the planting of God" (Louis Berkhof, p.561 -summarising the liberal position).
This was in fact quite similar to the Quaker view of each man inspired by the Spirit which bypassed all need for the Church, ordinances, sacraments, and even the Scriptures. It was
customary for quite a while therefore to deny that Jesus had ever intended to set up any kind of institution such as a Church, or even a community. All that he was concerned with, according to this view, was the more "pure", rational and evolved religion of liberalism: the Kingdom of God was merely a spiritual relation between the individual and his God. Developments of this view claim that Jesus expected an immediate apocalypse which would have made a new community a futile idea. Some evangelicals have taken on this higher critical idea: J.D. Allan in The Evangelicals: An illustrated version (Paternoster/Baker 1989) writes that, "when Jesus died, he seems to have made no provision for a continuing organization which would keep his ideas
alive" (p.5).
More prevalent is the idea that the disciples were something like a charismatic (or Quaker) sect who were immediately inspired by the Spirit and that there was no office or government in the early Church, but that the Holy Spirit governed alone and that this became quickly institutionalised with monarchical bishops in place by the end of the first century in a fixed
hierarchy. This is not only an academic notion but loosely corresponds to popular evangelical assumptions. Too often we read back our own reflection on to the New Testament Early Church and our own experience and ideal of charismatic chaotic spontaneity which has far more to do with a tradition of Evangelical pietism of the last century or so with its subjective, individualist fads than authentic apostolic experience. Millenarian or apocalyptic sects such as the Quakers and the Plymouth Brethren have often assumed that they are restoring a preinstitutionalist church where the Holy Spirit governs alone, and in doing so have exalted a particular interpretation of the Book of Acts above the other material in the New Testament. Restorationist charismatics do this in the same way that Edward Irving in the 19th century did, aiming to restore apostles as a prelude to Christ's second coming or other eschatological events. Such groups do not really use the book of Acts as an exact blueprint anyway, but rather their
interpretation. As Edward Donnelly points out: "Constitutions of Restoration churches do not, as far as we know, make provision for discipline by supernatural capital punishment (5:1-1)...Some who insist on a weekly Lord's Supper as the only scriptural pattern, for example, are not noted for a willingness to sell their possessions and hold all property in common (2:44,45)". (p.7, RTJ, 1998). We must seek to understand the full sweep of Biblical material and take especial note of the commands of Scripture rather than adopt assumptions and slogans that do not do justice
to the Scriptures.
Friday, September 23, 2005
the Church visible and invisible
We may consider the Church, in two ways.
1. As visible, and visibly professing Christ, and worshipping Him in ordinances.
2. Consider her as invisible, having true faith in christ, real spiritual union with Him, and real exercise of graces
That distinction of the Church visible and invisible, is not a distribution of a whole into distinct parts, as, suppose one would divide a heap of chaff and corn, into corn and chaff. But this is a distinct uptaking of the same whole, (to wit, the Church) under two distinct considerations; as, suppose one would consider the foresaid heap, as it is a heap, comprehending both corn and chaff, or as it is only comprehensive of corn; so the Church thus distinguished, is but one, considered in whole, as having both renewed and unrenewed in it, and as having renewed only. Yet so, as the renewed are a part of the whole, under one consideration, to wit, as they are visible professors; and also, are the invisible Church, being distinctly considered, as they have more than a visible profession. Therefore, the likeness being so great and near, it is no marvel they be frequently conjoined, so as they must be distinguished in respect of these distinct considerations, seeing the visible Church in its consideration as such, comprehends the visible militant Church under it, but not contrarily.
It is ordinary upon this ground, thus to conjoin them in other Scriptures, as when an epistle is written to a Church, some things are said of it, and to it, as visible, some things again are peculiarly applicable to believers, who are members of the invisible Church in it; as by looking to these epistles, Rev. 2. and 3. is clear, all are comprehended in every epistle, yet is the matter diversely to be applied, and these who have ears to hear, (that is, are real members of the invisible Church also) are particularly spoken unto, although indefinitely.
If we consider either the visible, or invisible Church, as whole or Catholic, something is spoken to her under that consideration, namely as Catholic; so she is said to be one, Song. 6:9. made up of many, the Mother having many Daughters, a Vineyard intrusted to all the Keepers.
[We can also consider individual] members, either, 1. as professors of the visible Church, and one of them are distinct from another, or, 2. as members in particular of the invisible Church. Neither will this be thought strange, if we consider, that the Church however understood, and the particular and individual members thereof (especially of this invisible Church) are of an homogenous nature; so that what may be said of the whole, may be said of all its parts, and what may be predicated concerning the whole essentially, may be predicated of every part, etc.
James Durham from Commentary on Song of Solomon
1. As visible, and visibly professing Christ, and worshipping Him in ordinances.
2. Consider her as invisible, having true faith in christ, real spiritual union with Him, and real exercise of graces
That distinction of the Church visible and invisible, is not a distribution of a whole into distinct parts, as, suppose one would divide a heap of chaff and corn, into corn and chaff. But this is a distinct uptaking of the same whole, (to wit, the Church) under two distinct considerations; as, suppose one would consider the foresaid heap, as it is a heap, comprehending both corn and chaff, or as it is only comprehensive of corn; so the Church thus distinguished, is but one, considered in whole, as having both renewed and unrenewed in it, and as having renewed only. Yet so, as the renewed are a part of the whole, under one consideration, to wit, as they are visible professors; and also, are the invisible Church, being distinctly considered, as they have more than a visible profession. Therefore, the likeness being so great and near, it is no marvel they be frequently conjoined, so as they must be distinguished in respect of these distinct considerations, seeing the visible Church in its consideration as such, comprehends the visible militant Church under it, but not contrarily.
It is ordinary upon this ground, thus to conjoin them in other Scriptures, as when an epistle is written to a Church, some things are said of it, and to it, as visible, some things again are peculiarly applicable to believers, who are members of the invisible Church in it; as by looking to these epistles, Rev. 2. and 3. is clear, all are comprehended in every epistle, yet is the matter diversely to be applied, and these who have ears to hear, (that is, are real members of the invisible Church also) are particularly spoken unto, although indefinitely.
If we consider either the visible, or invisible Church, as whole or Catholic, something is spoken to her under that consideration, namely as Catholic; so she is said to be one, Song. 6:9. made up of many, the Mother having many Daughters, a Vineyard intrusted to all the Keepers.
[We can also consider individual] members, either, 1. as professors of the visible Church, and one of them are distinct from another, or, 2. as members in particular of the invisible Church. Neither will this be thought strange, if we consider, that the Church however understood, and the particular and individual members thereof (especially of this invisible Church) are of an homogenous nature; so that what may be said of the whole, may be said of all its parts, and what may be predicated concerning the whole essentially, may be predicated of every part, etc.
James Durham from Commentary on Song of Solomon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
