Household Baptism – A different approach

As is well known the Brethren are often differentiated into two groupings: Open and Exclusive. The Open Brethren have been largely Independent in terms of government. The Exclusive Brethren reject this Independency and 'maintain that they [the Open Brethren] have lost the truth of the Church and have become a system of independent gatherings quite contrary to the truth of the One Body "fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth"'. They point out that 'there is one doctrine and practice which is held by all Open Brethren assemblies - except perhaps by one or two of exclusive origin - which is that baptism must be only for believers of a responsible age on confession of faith. Most meetings refuse to allow a person to break bread unless he has been baptised as a believer, and if he was baptised as an infant it does not count in their eyes. The doctrine of household baptism is rigidly rejected and no teaching of it would be allowed'. W.R. Dronsfield, The "Brethren" since 1870, London, Chapter Two, 2002.

There are many aspects of Brethren teaching that we cannot accept as scriptural. It is interesting, nonetheless to see how those who are not covenantal in theology but dispensational regarding the New Testament and the Church as entirely separate from the Old Testament do find household baptism within the New Testament. Most of the principles upon which Reformed writers would make their case are entirely the same as those referred to by the Brethren writers. This is because the basic principles of interpreting Scripture have been preserved. It shows that there is evidence enough in the New Testament for household baptism and that the crucial issue in the controversy relating to baptism is how the Scriptures should be interpreted. SM Anglin points out that "it is not a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance. We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us."

It is not always appreciated that J.N. Darby held to household baptism. Volume 2 of his Letters provide some detail on his views. While rejected amongst the Open Brethren, household baptism has generally been held to by the various branches of the Exclusive Brethren. Writers belonging to these branches have sought to draw out some of the principles present in Darby's views. Some of the main writers are SM Anglin, FW Grant and CW Wycherley.

Is there a Command?

Anglin points out How often one hears it said: "We have the plain command of Scripture, 'Believe and be baptized' "; this is the stronghold of many, and yet there is no such expression in the Word, nor indeed any command to be baptized." "There are some who content themselves with asserting that there is no command in the Scriptures for baptizing the children of a believer, as though this settled the matter." This ignores that there is neither record nor command for a child of a Christian to be baptized as a believer. It is not, however, "a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance. We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us. If any will go in for command, there is only one, and that possibly is too comprehensive for them, namely, Matthew 28: 19-20."

FW Grant says of this verse. "Let us notice first more fully the words of the commission: "Disciple, baptising and teaching," show in their order that the teaching is that which perfects the disciple,- necessarily, because a "disciple" is a scholar: the baptism only gives him his place as that; it is authoritative reception into the school. It is the marking off, in a world which has rejected Christ and His words, of those who receive them and thus acknowledge Him. It shows that the kingdom is not territorial, that people are not born naturally into it, that it is individual now, not national, as in the case of Israel. The meaning of it as a symbol shows much more than this. Whether this subjection to Christ is real or not remains to be determined, and is not to be settled beforehand by the baptizer; although, of course, that in which it is professed must not be suffered to lapse from its meaning and be trifled with by frivolous use.

We are told, however, that "Jesus made and baptized disciples" (Jno. iv. i), and that this gives a contrary thought. But, in fact, it only emphasizes what is true, - that it is the Word, the teaching, that really makes disciples, which is of course true. If we think of what is implied in discipleship, the Word is necessarily the fundamental thing, the water but the formal, although that too may have importance. Who would say that the dying thief was not a disciple, although he had no opportunity of being baptized? On the other hand, to say that Jesus "made and baptized disciples" does not necessarily mean that they were disciples first, as the second part of the statement may be explanatory of the former, and needed to complete the idea to be conveyed: as when it is said (Ex. xxix. 7), "Thou shalt pour it upon his head and anoint him," these two things are really one, and not different acts; and the last expression but explains the former."

In relation to Mark 16:16 Anglin comments. "Mark 16: 16 is a favourite passage with those who oppose household baptism, but it proves too much, for according to it a person is not saved till baptized; but these say you must be saved first and baptized after. The fact is, the Lord is there looking at salvation in its full sense, connected with the time we are here on earth as well as with eternity, and for this two things are necessary. The vital and by far the most important one is put first, viz. faith, and the other is baptism; it is not a question of which comes first in point of time, but both must be true of the person before he is saved in the sense spoken of there. We need hardly say that a person is fit for the glory – for heaven – the moment he believes, and, like the thief on the cross, could go straight to Paradise through virtue of Christ's work, but when one remains on earth, it is another thing; there is a place where Christ is professedly owned and the faith of Christ is acknowledged, and if not there previously, such an one should then be brought there. If previously there, of course he cannot be brought there, though not saved till he believes; and if not there when he believes he is not saved (as to his place on earth) till baptized, and thus brought there; and, if the head of a family, it is his privilege to bring his children there also, and train them up in the faith of Christ, counting upon God to give life and faith to them also. When this latter takes place they too are saved, as the two things are true of them – they are believers and are baptized; this is what Mark 16 teaches; but it is not faith to say, I will wait first and make sure that my children have faith and divine life, and baptize them then'; though, of course, if not baptized before they ought to be so then on the ground of professed repentance and faith.The verse, however, is in full keeping with household baptism, as, surely, one part of Scripture must be with another."

Baptism brings onto Christian Ground

Darby writes: "The question as to children is not are they converted, but are they to be left in the devil's dominion, or brought where the Holy Ghost dwells, to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?" As Darby taught, Exclusive Brethren authors teach that baptism brings a person on to Christian ground. Anglin writes "Scripture presents it to us as reception on to Christian ground, or position on earth, from amongst Jews or Gentiles. It constitutes the person baptized a Christian as to his position here on earth, and introduces him thereby into the outward privileges of Christianity." This is seen in Acts 10 when Cornelius and other Gentiles are baptised. Peter asks: "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized?", etc.

Clearly baptism was connected with privilege in his mind, or else his words have no meaning; but it was not admission to the privileges of Judaism, or he would have said: "Can anyone forbid circumcision?" Thus, I may say, baptism supersedes circumcision, as Christianity supersedes Judaism. Here, again, it is not the obedience to a command by those baptized, but the reception of persons whom Peter saw ought to be received. God had already owned them and given them the greatest gift, making no difference between them and the circumcision, and thus the way to their reception was clear; Peter owns it, and says in substance to those with him (for his remarks and directions are addressed to his companions of the circumcision), bring them in, they ought not to be kept outside'; and this they did by baptizing them."

"When a Jew was thus awakened (as in Acts 2) would he be content to escape from the apostate condemned place himself and leave his family there? Surely not; but, as in Egypt of old, would say "not a hoof shall be left behind". He would not wait till they grew up leaving them to choose between Judaism and Christianity for themselves." (Anglin)

Baptism is connected with Christ's lordship and authority

These writers speak of baptism as "putting on Christ, which is connected with His lordship and authority; and with positional identification with Him on earth; for baptism relates entirely to our position on earth under God's government" (Anglin). As Wycherley points out Galatians 3: 27 says, "As many as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ" but the Baptist version of this would have to read 'As many as have put on Christ by faith ought to be baptized'.

In relation to Gal. 3:27 FW Grant writes: "in the words used, we have not, as so many suppose, any implication of necessary activity in the person who "puts on" Christ. The same word, only compounded with the preposition "upon," and in the first aorist middle, exactly as here, is used in 2 Cor. V. 2 for our "being clothed upon with our house that is from heaven," and we might there speak of "putting on" the resurrection body, or here of our being "clothed with" Christ. The responsibility of the baptismal place belongs to the one in it, however the grace of God may have wrought in putting him in. To a child who has been baptized in infancy - allowing for a moment that God has given them the privilege of this,- one could say, "You were clothed with Christ."

The exhortation in Rom. Xlii. 14 is not inconsistent with this. It is, what we have not in English, an in imperative in the past (the aorist), and means, "be as one that has been clothed with Christ."

If baptism is the putting on of Christ, even this does not necessarily imply any voluntary activity; for so it is said that "this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal immortality;" and man in dying puts off his tabernacle". Anglin says that in this passage in Galatians, the apostle "refers to their baptism, and says, as it were, You have put on Christ by your baptism (as many as were baptized), why put on Moses?' They were outwardly identified with Christ by their baptism – had put Him on. Just as of old Israel were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All were baptized to him – men, women, and children – and therefore outwardly connected with him, and under his authority. How they might act afterwards was another thing, and whether they had faith or not remained for the wilderness to prove".

Grant writes that in 1 Cor 10 "Baptized unto Moses" has...the force of "set apart to Moses" as disciples. So those who were baptized with John's baptism were John's disciples. So have we found the Lord bidding to "disciple, baptizing." "Baptized unto the name of the Father" is discipled to the truth of what God is. "Baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts xix. 5) must be similar in meaning". Anglin also states "Thus Jesus is Lord of all, and baptism is always to Him as Lord (see 1 Cor. 10: 2, "baptized to Moses"), and the one baptized is brought where His authority is acknowledged, and, as baptized to Him, is responsible to own it practically. It is only by His death we can have what is presented and enjoyed in Christianity. Therefore the apostle goes on, in Romans 6, to say, We are buried with Him by baptism unto death".

In relation to the phrase "One Lord One Faith One Baptism" in Ephesians 4, Grant writes: "One faith" evidently means what some would call one creed, not faith as the principle of dependence upon God, in which sense "one" faith would hardly be intelligible. In connection, then, with "one Lord, one faith," we have "one baptism." ..."baptism" by itself naturally means the rite; when used with other applications, other words are added in explanation. Water-baptism also, as we shall find fully as we go on, is that which is connected with the sphere of discipleship, that is, of the kingdom, as that of the Spirit is with the Church."

An Objective Ordinance

Darby resisted the idea that it was a sign that an individual was regenerated. "The state of individuals in their souls has nothing to do with it. It is not communion in the unity of the body, which is by the Holy Ghost". It is an objective ordinance, "it is the outward reception on earth which is before us". "Baptism is a privilege granted, which admits into the number of the faithful and into the great house". "The person is received outwardly into the habitation of God, as set up in this world. Ephesians 2: 22; 1 Timothy 3: 15." Darby believed that the Baptist "principle makes baptism the bond of the unity of the body, and through this they are Baptists – that makes them Baptists – but this very principle is quite false, and contrary to scripture". "It [i.e the 'baptist' system] then – without knowing it – accepts a principle which breaks down Christianity in its foundation, like him who keeps days, but in a more serious case, because they make the oneness of the body to depend on it." "God...has established a dwelling place consequent on redemption, where His blessings are". "Not that all were Israel which were of Israel, but these blessings were distinctively theirs – Romans 9: 1-6 – not amongst the heathen." He writes that "the Lord, and the faith – not personal, but the "one faith" – and baptism are associated. In the baptism of a child there is plain testimony to the need of Christ's death for its admission."

The House is Always Linked with the Head

"Noah's house went into the Ark with him, because they were his house, and because he was righteous (see Gen. 7: 1). If one had been an infant surely he had as much privilege as the oldest, not because of being an infant, but because one of Noah's family.

The Flood was part of God's governmental dealings with the earth, and it was in connection with these that they were thus privileged; but neither their privilege to enter, nor their relationship to Noah would have availed if he had not taken them into the Ark. Nor again, did being in the Ark affect their state of soul, nor give them faith; as we have each taken up afterwards as to their individual state, Shem being blessed and Ham cursed. Abraham acted on this, in his day, and in doing so made no distinction between Ishmael and Isaac. There was a very great distinction in other ways, as regarded personal faith, etc., but not in this. The point was that they belonged to Abraham – formed part of his house, and it was his responsibility – his act – flowing from what God had given and made known to him. He does not wait till Isaac grows up first to see how he will turn out, nor does he refuse Ishmael because he had no faith. Household baptism goes on the same principle.

In Abraham's case it took the form of a command, as afterwards connected with the legal system, but this does not touch the principle, which is just as clearly established in the New Testament. The Lord says of Zaccheus, "This day is salvation come to this house". Peter says, in Acts 2, "The promise is to you and to your children". Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house". (Anglin)

The Head is Responsible for his Household

"God says of Abraham, "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him", etc. Eli, on the other hand, receives the most withering reproof and judgment from God because he had failed to rule his house according to their position and privileges. Circumcised no doubt they were, and thus brought into what they were entitled to by birth, but now, being there, he was responsible to train them according to the place they were in. He was wrong, not in circumcising them first, but in not training them afterwards. This principle we have also in the New Testament. In Ephesians 6 we read, "Fathers … bring them (your children) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord". The father is responsible to do this. Eli, as we know, did much; he set his sons a good example, he taught them, and even reproved them; but he did not, for all that, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and God held him responsible for their wickedness. He might plead, as so many are ready to do, I cannot give my children a new nature, nor create in them desires for what is right and good; I must leave them with God to do that'; I answer, God holds each father responsible, as under the authority of Christ, and subject to Him, and in separation from the world. The whole house must be separated to Christ, and subject to Him. The wilderness might not appear to be such a pleasant place for the young ones who were baptized to Moses, as Egypt was; that was not the question, but their connection with God and with Moses, to whom He had given authority, and their complete separation from Egypt and its rulers. But let us bear in mind that, however attractive Egypt might appear as a place of self-gratification, it was the place of death. It represents the world in its independence of God and under His judgment – a place too of cruel bondage to God's people until delivered from its power.

The children of believing parents ought therefore to be in a distinct place from the world, to be trained up in the fear of the Lord...The children should form part of a Christian household, and baptism is the admission to the place of a Christian outwardly, as well as owning the lordship of Christ in the act. Is not the head of the house then responsible to own the authority of Christ as to every member of his house? Should he not put them on the ground where it is owned, and in the way that God has set forth? To refuse to do so, is either in effect saying that they are not different from the world, or else, to act on the principle of Cain, though unwittingly, in presenting something to God apart from death; that is, to act as though sin were not in the world, and children were not by nature sinful and at a distance from God.

It is another principle, that we cannot be in relationship to God apart from death – from that which sets forth Christ's death of which circumcision under law and baptism under Christianity are the symbols or figures – more fully expressed by baptism, as Christianity is above and beyond Judaism: one being a command as connected with a legal system, the other of grace, and connected with a dispensation of grace flowing from the death of Christ." (Anglin)

Illustrating the Principles

Anglin illustrates these principles by referring to instances in the Gospels where someone is blessed through the exercise of faith on the part of another. "In the first part of Matthew 9 we have the man with the palsy getting governmental forgiveness, and as a consequence perfect restoration to health, through the act of faith in others. It says, "Jesus seeing their faith. Clearly it was their act which manifested their faith, and the man is blessed. Another case is Acts 3, where the lame man is cured by Peter. In verse 16 Peter explains how it was effected. He says, "His (Christ's) name through faith in His name hath made this man strong", etc.; but where was the "faith in His name"? Not in the man, but in Peter. It may have resulted in faith on the part of the man afterwards, but this is not said directly, and certainly his faith is not the ground of his being made whole. It was Christ's name, and faith in His name on the part of Peter; and the blessing received related to God's governmental ways. "

Of such is the kingdom

Darby argues that the children of believers are said to be "of the kingdom of heaven" and therefore ought to be admitted to its privileges. "I know no administrative entrance to it on earth but baptism. It was the prescribed order down on earth". Wycherley wrote similarly: "If then there is an outward sphere, called the kingdom of heaven, and the children are to be received into it; and if the fathers get into this outward sphere by baptism, does it not follow that the children must come in by the same door?"

Now are they holy

Darby believed that there was a lot of clarity as to the status of the children of believers in 1 Corinthians 7:14. "But when I come to 1 Corinthians 7: 14, I think I get the question specifically decided. It is directly the subject. If a Jew married a Gentile he was profaned – not profane, a profane thing cannot be profaned – and was to send away his wife and children – see Ezra and Nehemiah: was it so under grace? No, the converse; the unbeliever was sanctified – opposite to profaned, not holy – and the children were holy, to be received, not cut off. Hence the word is "unclean," the force of which as precluding approach to the house of Jehovah in Israel is well known." "Thus we may see also why, going beyond the law, the children even of a marriage where one remains an unbeliever can be called by the apostle "holy." The words run thus (i Cor. vii. 13, 15) :- "And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by ("in") the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy."

FW Grant commented on this verse: "The use of the word "unclean" explains the corresponding word "holy." It is not vital holiness that he is thinking of, but external position. According to the law the children of such a marriage could claim none; but grace goes altogether beyond law. It is not said of the unbeliever that he or she is "holy," as the child is; merely sanctified in the believer. The child has an acknowledged place as " holy" or "clean;" and this he takes to show that the marriage stands; for if the children were unclean, the marriage itself would be. Baptism gives this acknowledged place, a place in the kingdom of God, which under different forms runs through the dispensations.

"Clean" would not express for the Jew the thought conveyed by holy; that is, "consecrated, dedicated, or sanctified to God "; and hagios is the word which would be used in Greek for expressing this. To have said "clean" would have been enough to have proved the lawfulness of the marriage. The "sanctified" and "holy" were both needed in order to express the thought of relationship to God. The use of the two words, therefore, here, is every way significant. "

Wycherley writes: "The point of this scripture is the relative position of the husband and wife towards each other, which determines the relative position of the children towards the sanctuary. ... Under law, the Jew had to put away his strange wife; she was not "sanctified", and the children were illegitimate (unclean). Under grace "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband". This is, the marriage is valid, and the children are legitimate or "holy", and as such entitled to come into the congregation of the Lord (the outer court)."

Household Baptisms in Acts

Anglin comments interestingly upon the household baptism recorded in Acts 16.
Lydia and her House – Acts 16: 13-15 Anglin points out that while it is said of Lydia "whose heart the Lord opened to the Word" no such fact is recorded of her household baptised with her - that their hearts were opened. ..Lydia is not only brought on to the ground of Christianity herself, but has her house also brought with her, which was no light thing in that day, when surrounded by enemies of Christianity – both Jews and Gentiles. Lydia's house is a distinct case of baptism without the slightest intimation of any confession on their part, or work of God in them, and had these things been true of them as of her, surely it would have been mentioned, and, besides, verse 15 shows it was Lydia's act so to speak, that is, done on her responsibility. It is household baptism, clearly and simply set forth by Scripture, connected with the responsibility and faithfulness (as far as it went) of the head of the house – though a woman.

The Jailer and his House – Acts 16: 25-34. The apostle in answer to his inquiry, "What must I do to be saved?" at once links his house up with him (see also chapter 11: 14). We then have the word of the Lord spoken "to all that were in his house", a term including more than "his house" in the previous verse. In the next verse baptism comes in, and it is himself and "all his" (not all that were in his house) who are said to be baptized; the distinction between the two is very clear and important. The jailer would be responsible for the baptism of his house – "all his", but not for others who might be in his house at the time – other jailers, servants, etc. "All his" would only include only those for who he was responsible on account of their relationship to himself, and would, therefore, take in the very youngest child. It may be said there is no proof he had any children, or, at least, young children. I answer, this does not at all affect the point, which is, that "all his" were connected with him in outward blessing and privilege, and therefore were baptized, and what is insisted on is that this principle includes the very youngest child. It was, as we have already shown, an instance of admitting the house, with the head of it, into the place of privilege. Are they entitled to this on account of their relationship? And if so, they assuredly ought to be baptized; and whether they are adults or infants is not the question, provided they are living in the house, and by relationship under the authority of the head of it.
The rendering of verse 34 in the Authorized Version is not quite correct. It is, in the original, "he rejoiced with all his house, he having believed in God". Note: The words "having believed in God" are in the singular number, and apply to the jailer only, and this is very important to note."

Conclusion

The Brethren case for household baptism is extremely interesting. Most of the principles upon which Reformed writers would make their case are entirely the same. The approach is simply slightly different. These selections represent a broad view of the way in which a non-covenantal Brethren/Dispensationalist interpretation of the Scriptures has found room for household baptism simply because as SM Anglin points out "it is not a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance. We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us." The anti-household baptism position rejects clear scriptural principles that are obvious whether or not one follows the Reformed theology of the covenants. There is enough evidence in the New Testament to demonstrate the case for household baptism.

The Decline of Order, Justice and Liberty in England

A Brief History of Crime: The Decline of Order, Justice and Liberty in England
Peter Hitchens Atlantic Books 2003 ISBN 1 84354 148 3 hbk pp. 315

Against a background of a rumoured election, an epidemic of violent crime and a crisis in the prison system one does not have to look for reasons to think about the state of law and order in the UK. Add to this the fear that Christians will soon find that some of their beliefs are outlawed. Those that are concerned, as all ought to be, that the civil powers should be 'a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil' and that 'we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty' will share a concern similar to the author of this book. It is written 'to show that much of the public debate on crime and punishment in modern England is based on mistaken beliefs, misunderstood figures and cheap slogans – especially on the death penalty, imprisonment, drugs, policing and the right to bear arms.' Hitchens shows a keen insight into these failures describing the unchecked slide into disorder: 'England is rapidly becoming a place where the good are afraid of the bad and the bad are not afraid of anything'. 'A society that clearly and decisively punishes wicked actions will have no need to document, restrict or spy on the millions who do not do such actions...the more generously and considerately we create safeguards for transgressors, the fewer freedoms will remain for those who behave themselves'.

Crime is seen by those in power as an endemic social and economic disease 'produced by poverty, bad housing, poor schools and all the other ills that socialism claims to be able to cure'. Their response is only therefore to try and contain it. The bureaucratic repression that is mobilised to deal with this has more restrictive effect upon the law-abiding than the criminal. The danger of this solution is that it will ultimately 'create a social and legal system so stifling and intrusive as to be uncomfortably close to dictatorship'. The measures implemented under Blair pose 'the gravest threat to English liberty since the 17th century'.

Hitchens traces the dramatic post-war descent of Britain, in terms of law and order. He blames a political establishment that has systematically dismantled all the supports of effective punishment of crime. Policing has abandoned any attempt at prevention by removing the patrolling officer. 'The machinery and structure of the English police have been designed since 1966 to react to crime instead of prevent it before it happens'. The policy of responding to incidents after they have happened 'has given evildoers a new feeling of freedom from fear and so made streets less pleasant and less safe'. Police officers are now the servants of political correctness instead of the ordinary citizen. Hitchens supports capital punishment by recalling the days when murder, a 'crime of unique horror', was punishable by a unique punishment, society's most civilised response to murder. The book concludes with a postscript which reviews the case of the elderly street preacher Harry Hammond who was assaulted, arrested and then convicted and fined for holding a simple placard of protest. We do not necessarily commend every way in which the author expresses his case but it is a sober and well-researched treatment of the subject. The book concludes: 'One major purpose of this book is to warn that there is now a real threat to liberty, thought and speech in this country, a threat which cannot be lightly dismissed by any observant or alert citizen'.

A paperback version has been issued under the title 'The Abolition of Liberty'.

John Kennedy of Dingwall

A new website has been set up devoted to the works of Rev. Dr. John Kennedy of Dingwall http://www.john-kennedy-dingwall.co.nr/. It contains a Memoir of Dr Kennedy appeared in the Inverness Courier newspaper in 1893. Mrs Kennedy regarded it as the best account of her late husband that had appeared in any form.
The memoir states that "The life of Dr Kennedy, written by his friend, Mr Auld, is a good, faithful book, but inadequate. It gives us dates, facts, diaries, letters, but it does not give us the man. Dr Kennedy was vital to his finger tips." It goes on "Briefly, he was a Scottish Puritan who adhered with the utmost tenacity of grasp – and his grasp was singularly powerful and tenacious - to all the tenets of the [Westminster] Confession of Faith as interpreted by the Evangelical party before the Disruption. He was a Calvinist, bowing down with humble head before the divine sovereignty, and seeking no philosophical or rationalistic explanations of the inscrutable. He accepted the authority of Scripture without question. To him it spoke with such plentitude of inspiration that its words carried conviction to his heart."

It quotes from one of his lectures: "The blessing of the Most High," he exclaims, "is what Scotland needs. This alone could make her truly rich. This alone can save her from her perils. This alone could have made her what she once became and secured the continuance of her prosperity. Whatever may betide her in the age next to come, I love to think of her, on some bright future day, emerging with all the nations of the earth from the darkness and the storms of antemillennial times into the brightness and the calm of many ages of blessedness, receiving on her bosom the light of heavenly favour and the dew of heavenly grace, till a verdure richer than ever clothed her shall cover her all over, and fruits of righteousness shall grow throughout all her borders, such as are befitting the very garden of the Lord."

The Sorrows Of The Bereaved Spread Before Jesus

by Jonathan Edwards
September 2, 1741.

Matthew 14:12, "And his disciples came and took up the body and buried it, and went and told Jesus."

It was now a sorrowful time with John's disciples; when they were thus bereaved of him whose teachings they had sat under. And the manner of his death was doubtless very grievous to them. They were like a company of sorrowful, distressed, bereaved children. And what do they do in their sorrows, but go to Jesus with their complaint. The first thing that they do, after paying proper regards to the remains of their dear master, is to go to Christ, to spread their case before him, seeking comfort and help from him. Thus they sought their own benefit.

And probably one end of their immediately going and telling Jesus was, that he, being informed of it, might conduct himself accordingly, as his wisdom should direct, for the interest of his own kingdom. When so great a person as John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, was thus martyred, it was a great event, in which the common cause, in which both Christ and he were engaged, was greatly concerned. It was therefore fit that he that was at the head of the whole affair should be informed of it, for his future conduct in the affairs of his kingdom. And accordingly we find that Jesus seems immediately to be influenced in his conduct by these tidings; as you may see in the next verse. "When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by a ship into a desert place apart." Thus John's disciples sought God's glory.

The observation from the words that I would make the subject of my discourse at this times, is this:

When anyone is taken away by death, that has been eminent in the work of the gospel ministry, such as are thereby bereaved, should go and spread their calamity before Jesus.

Though in handling this subject I might particularly speak to several propositions that are contained in this observation, and many things might profitably be insisted on under it, if there were room for it within the compass of a sermon; yet I shall only give the reasons of the doctrine, and then hasten to the application.

The following reasons may be given why, in case of such an awful dispensation of Providence, those that are concerned in it, and bereaved by it, should go and spread their sorrow before Jesus:

1. Christ is one that is ready to pity the afflicted. It is natural for persons that are bereaved of any that are dear to them, and for all under deep sorrow, to seek some that they may declare and lay open their griefs to, that they have good reason to think will pity them, and have a fellow-feeling with them of their distress. The heart that is full of grief wants vent, and desires to pour out its complaint; but it seeks a compassionate friend to pour it out before.

Christ is such an one, above all others. He of old, before his incarnation, manifested himself full of compassion towards his people. For that is Jesus that is spoken of [in] Isa. 63:9, "In all their affliction he was afflicted; and the angel of his presence saved them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." And when he was upon earth in his state of humiliation, he was the most wonderful instance of a tender, pitiful, compassionate spirit, that ever appeared in the world. How often are we told of his having compassion on one and another! So Mat. 15:32, "Then Jesus called his disciples, and said unto them, I have compassion on the multitude." So he had compassion on the man possessed with devils. Mark 5:19, "Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done to thee, and hath had compassion on thee." So we read of his pitying the mother, that was bereaved of her son. Luke 7:13. There we have an account, when Christ went into the city of Nain, and met the people carrying out a dead man, the only son of his mother, that was a widow, that when he saw her, he had compassion on her. So when the two blind men that sat by the wayside cried to Jesus, as he passed by, saying, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David," we read that Jesus had compassion on them. Mat. 20:30. So we read of his being moved with compassion. Mat. 14:14, "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and when he saw them he was moved with compassion." His speeches to his disciples were full of compassion; especially those that he uttered a little before his death, of which we have an account in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John. His miracles were almost universally deeds of pity to persons under affliction.

And seeing such a pitiful heart appeared in him on all occasions, no wonder that John's disciples, when bereaved to their dear guide and teacher, and their hearts were full of sorrow, came to him for pity. Which likewise induced Mary and Martha to come and fall down, pouring out their tears at Jesus' feet, when their dear brother Lazarus was dead. Other Jews came to comfort them, before Jesus came, whom they little regarded, but when they heard that Jesus was come, they soon go and spread their sorrows before him. They were assured that he would pity them; and their expectation was not frustrated; for he was most tenderly affected and moved at their tears. We are told that on that occasion he groaned in spirit and was troubled. John 11:33. And when he came to the grave, it is observed, and a special note seems to be set upon it, that he wept, verse 35.

He was one that wept with those that wept. And indeed it was mere pity that brought him into the world, and induced him not only to shed tears but to shed his blood. He poured out his blood as water on the earth, out of compassion to the poor, miserable children of men. And when do we ever read of any one person coming to him when on earth, with a heavy heart, or under any kind of sorrow or distress for pity or help, but what met with a kind and compassionate reception?

And he has the same compassion now he is ascended into glory. There is still the same encouragement for the bereaved ones to go and spread their sorrows before him.

Afflicted persons love to speak of their sorrows to them that have had EXPERIENCE of affliction, and know what sorrow is. But there is none on earth or in heaven that ever had so much experience of sorrow as Christ. Therefore he knows how to pity the sorrowful...

2. Christ has purchased all that persons need under such a bereavement. He has purchased all that miserable men stand in need of under all their calamities, and comfort under every sort of affliction. And therefore that his invitation to those that "Labour and are heavy laden," with either natural or moral evil: he has purchased divine cordials and supports for those hearts that are ready to sink: he has purchased all needed comfort and help for the widow and the fatherless: he has purchased a sanctified improvement and fruit of affliction, for all such as come to him, and spread their sorrows before him.

3. Christ is able to afford all that help that is needed in such a case. His power and his wisdom are as sufficient as his purpose, and answerable to his compassions. By the bowels of his mercies, the love and tenderness of his heart, he is disposed to help those that are in affliction; and his ability is answerable to his disposition. He is able to support the heart under the heaviest sorrows, and to give light in the darkness. He can divide the thickest cloud with beams of heavenly light and comfort. He is one that gives songs in the night, and turns the shadow of death into the morning.

Persons under sorrowful bereavements are ready to go and lay open their sorrows to them that they think will be ready to pity them, though they know they can but pity them, and cannot help them. How much more is here in such a case to induce us to go to Jesus, who is not only so ready to pity, but so able to help, able abundantly more than to fill up the breach, and able to turn all our sorrows into joy!

A Solemn and accurate observation

'...if British freedom is to be subverted, the process will be begun by Sabbath desecration; will proceed by the consequent degradation of the people through the inevitable loss of faith and holiness, and will end in the assumption of despotic power by those who degrade in order to enslave; who not fearing God, neither regard man.'

William Hetherington 1844

160 years later we know the truth of this by experience.

True Spiritual Hunger

Rev. John Willison of Dundee

1 . True hunger is unsatiable without food : Bring a treasure, a crown, or the greatest preferments to a hungry man, all cannot satisfy him: So nothing can
satisfy the hungry soul but Christ ; not his ordinances or benefits only, but himself ; not the supper or bread of the Lord but the Lord of the supper and the Lord of the bread, Ps. lxxiii. 25. Job xxiii. 3.

2. Hunger is unsupportable without meat ; the man must die if he want it ; so the truly hungry soul cannot live or subsist without Christ ; he can bear the want of other things, but Christ he cannot want, Psalm cxliii. 7, 9.

3. Hunger makes a man resolute, active, and industrious; he will spare neither cost nor travel for food, it would even break through stone walls : So a hungry soul will venture through all difficulties to find Christ, Cant. iii. 2, 3.

4. Hunger makes a man very humble ; he will make the coarsest bread, or meanest crumb, very welcome : So tbe truly hungry will be content to have Christ upon any terms, though it were even to be the meanest servant of his house,
or set with his dogs, provided always he may have a relation to his family, Luke xv. 10.

5. Hunger makes a man restless and impatient of delays till food be brought ; so the hungry soul cries oft, " How long, Lord, wilt thou forget me ? How long wilt thou hide thy face ? When shall I come and appear before God ?" Psalm xiii. 1. Psalm xliii. 1, 2.

6. It makes a man prefer Christ and his ordinances to all his worldly interests, and willing to part with all things to obtain these, Luke v. 11.

7. It makes Christ and his spiritual benefits very sweet and pleasant to the soul, and likewise the ordinances that do convey them, Cant. ii. 3. Psal. cxxxii. 1.

why some people never make the spiritual progress they desire

This excerpt from the puritan Robert Bolton explains some reasons why some people never make the spiritual progress they desire. In the past a deeper work of conviction was seen as a vital part of conversion. The danger is on the one hand to slip into the idea that we need a particular degree of conviction but on the other hand not to seek deeper conviction.

'Therefore observe that contrition in a new-born soul ordinarily is in proportion to his former vanity. To whom much is forgiven, they love much: and this is a fountain of evangelical repentance. As a traitor condemned to die, receiving a pardon, would wonderfully break his heart to think he should be so villainous to so gracious a prince: so it is with a Christian that beholds God's mercy to him.

Christians after their conversion desire to see their sins to the utmost, with all the circumstances that make them hateful, such as the object, nature, person, time, age, etc. in which, or how they were done, that so they may be more humbled for them.

If it be not so (it may be otherwise, for God is a free agent, and is not tied to any proportion of sorrow) then such troubles as these usually seize on them:

First. They are often afflicted with this, that their conversion is not thorough and sound, and so do not perform the duties of godliness with such heartiness and cheerfulness.

Second. They are many times haunted with listlessness and coldness in their progress in Christianity.

Third. They are visited with some cross or other that sticks by them: to make them lay a greater load upon sin.

Fourth. They are more subject to be overtaken with their easily besetting sin, because they have no more sorrowed for it; for the less it is sorrowed over, the more it ensnares men.

Fifth. Some of them have been assaulted upon their bed of death with sorrowful and strong temptations. Not that men should think this is always the reason of it, for God has aims in all His works known only to Himself; but I have known some have so been troubled, and this may be in great mercy to make a weak conversion more strong. Lest any Christian should be troubled at it, note in contrition there must be sorrow of heart because of sin: there must be a dislike of it in the will: there must be a strong reasoning in the mind out of the word of God against sin; this is the sinew of repentance: there must be a resolution, and striving and watching against it, like Job who made a covenant with his eyes, Job 31: l: there must be a grieving that he is not excelling in all these, and here he must make up what he wants in the former. These be in some measure in all Christians. Some are more eminent in one part, some in another; as Joseph had little sorrow, but a strong resolution, because he had so strong a temptation, and withstood it; he had strong reasons beyond nature to resist sin, and resolve against it: so that it is not so much the measure as the truth of every part that is required. But if they be not excelling in great sinners, they are to mourn for the want of them. To help here, observe these ten degrees of repentance, or rather helps to humiliation.'

The ten helps can be read at http://www.bibleteacher.org/bolton.htm

Fundamentalism and Evangelicals

Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, Harriet A Harris, Oxford Theological Monographs, Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1998, pp.384, ISBN 0-19-826960-9

While liberals like Bishop Spong have tended to smear the 'Fundamentalist' label with convenient alacrity, evangelicals, such as John Stott, Derek Tidball and Alistair McGrath have, on the other hand, tended rather anxiously to define a straw-man fundamentalism. In view of these extremes it is useful to find a more judicious and careful examination of the relationship between fundamentalism and evangelicals. Harris rightly emphasises fundamentalism as a mentality or tendency rather than a coherent movement. She begins with a historical study of the roots of 1920's Fundamentalism that details the various strands of revivalism, holiness teaching and premillenariansism. The power base of this movement was largely located in conferences and Bible Institutes that had their ancestry in the Albury and Niagara prophetic conferences. The entire relevant history of the last century and a half on both sides of the Atlantic is sketched in well to include all the usual suspects.

The second chapter proceeds to James Barr's critique of fundamentalism. Harris maintains that Barr does not simply equate conservative evangelicalism with fundamentalism he rather prefers to view them as overlapping circles. Barr's analysis represents fundamentalism as a rather incoherent and undeveloped mentality with assorted doctrines but no clear theology. Philosophically, it adheres to an 18th century type of evidentialism while its pretensions to critical scholarship are belied by a determination to skew the evidence. Interestingly, however, Barr prophesies (in 1977) significant shifts for conservative evangelicals on a number of issues, he expected the charismatic/pentecostal movement to subvert their endemic rationalism.

Chapter 3 considers the philosophical roots that Barr refers to, namely Scottish Common-Sense philosophy, which was the dominant philosophy at Princeton Seminary during the nineteenth century. This tradition sought to oppose Humean scepticism with a robust Realism especially in relation to language. Harris gives sufficient space to a study of Thomas Reid's thought showing that although this foremost Common Sense Realist was a Moderate rather than Evangelical, evangelicals such as Robert Haldane, Louis Gaussen and Alexander Carson nevertheless borrowed arguments from him in order to defend the perspicuity of scripture. They asserted innerrancy with a vigorous inductive method that made their conclusion dependent upon 'evidences'. In America Common Sense principles undergirded the educational system from the time of Independence but it was largely James W Alexander and Charles Hodge who developed a 'scientific' theological method. Harris argues, however, that this reached an intense pitch in the thought of B.B. Warfield who often gave evidences a foundational rather than a supporting role. Warfield believed that textual criticism would vindicate and clarify the problem areas of Scripture. Scripture was therefore not so much self-authenticating as evidence-authenticated. Controversially, later evangelicals such as Daniel Fuller and Clark Pinnock have claimed to be following Warfield's principle of letting 'induction control from beginning to end' to its logical conclusion in developing a doctrine of limited inerrancy. In this sense even Creation Scientists are comparatively less fundamentalist (as Barr himself suggests) than those that revise their biblical interpretation to fit scientific opinion.

Chapter 5 enacts a dialogue between liberal and fundamentalist opinions of one another and between their respective views of Scripture. The tension of objectivist and subjectivist tendencies within the evangelical position are drawn forth rather well (although it should be recognised that this has always been a difficulty for liberals as well). Harris maintains that evangelical inductive apologetics bears little influence in individual testimonies and experiential factors are instead predominant.

Harris then devotes two chapters to Dutch Neo-Calvinism as represented in Abraham Kuyper's thought and influence. Kuyper's abiding influence is traced in following chapters. Cornelius Van Til's apologetic similarly discounted evidences and according to sources this was one of the main reasons for the 1937 schism at Westminster Seminary. Van Til follows Warfield a considerable distance on inerrancy and therefore, in Harris's opinion, limits the effectiveness of presuppostionalism as an alternative to rational empiricism. Harris finds Van Til's mix of British Idealist philosophy with Kuyperian ideas and Calvinist theology together with Warfieldian thinking rather strange. She also concludes that both presuppostionalism and evidentialism display circular reasoning departing from deductive premises.

In the last chapter evangelical engagement with phenomenological hermeneutics is considered.

In many ways Harris extends the critique applied by James Barr. One doesn't need to adopt Barr's theology to recognise the sharpness of some of his observations. In fact recent evangelicals such as David F. Wells have recognised the absence of theology in evangelicalism. What Barr emphasises is the opportunism or determined pragmatism of evangelicals which entails making use of the work of those not theologically or philosophically alligned for their own ends. One doesn't need to go back to Thomas Reid, the example of C.S. Lewis is appropriate enough. This magpie mentality believes in making evangelicalism 'electable', contemporary or relevant and it is this populist impulse which perhaps defines Protestant fundamentalism - anything is suitable so long as it works. This attitude goes back to 'The Fundamentals' themselves: Volume 2 concludes with 'Tributes to Christ and the Bible by Brainy Men not known as Active Christians'. In this sense Harris's volume is a useful assessment of the options and weaknesses facing evangelicals in the present time. It demonstrates the rootlessness experienced by evangelicalism in not adhering fully to Reformed theology.

How modern versions mislead about textual criticism

An article by a textual critic has criticised the misleading way that the NIV treats text critical matters. The article "Some Witnesses Have ...": The Representation of the New Testament Text in English Bible Versions is by Holger Szesnat of the Cambridge Theological Federation. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol12/Szesnat2007.pdf He is also critical of the CEV which manages to confuse notes relating to translation and notes relating to textual criticism in its Preface.

New King James Version
The article does not address one of the most confusing translations with respect to textual criticism, the New King James Version. The marginal notes relating to textual criticism in this version are among the most extensive since such matters were introduced by the Revised Version. The footnotes in the NKJV make constant reference to the Nestle-United Bible Society critical Greek text and in some cases to the Majority text and thus create exactly the same kind of doubt with respect to the original text of Scripture that is in the other modern versions. By questioning the authenticity of such verses and phrases the notes create confusion for the reader and even skepticism. There is an expectation that Bible students will be able to pick and choose according to their subjective sense of what is authentic. Or else there is an assumption that readers will initiate themselves into the philosophy of textual neutrality or eclecticism, of picking and choosing between the readings of competing texts and versions. The latter seems to be entirely the intention according to the New King James Bible Study Edition which states that:
'It was the editors' conviction that the the use of footnotes would encourage further enquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly in the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers'.

Textual criticism is a complex,technical discipline requiring the knowledge of many ancient languages and in-depth historical awareness of the history of texts. Modern versions would launch the general reader with very little intelligible information into a vast field of knowledge that they cannot hope to process adequately.

New American Standard Bible
This version had originally cut out various parts of the New Testament on the basis of textual criticism and has recently had to reinstate them. One of these passages was the ascension of Christ in Luke. The NASB originally left this ascension account out, claiming it was not found in the best witnesses. It is now restored. As Theodore Letis pointed out they did so 'on the basis of the discovery of papyrus75, (p75), a very early third century witness to the validity of this ascension account. This papyrus was discovered in the 1950s, just about the time that the NASB project was getting off the ground. The NASB New Testament portion appeared in stages between 1960 and 1963, but the entire bible did not materialize until 1971 and as with the current Updated Edition of the NASB which already lags behind the most current edition of the Greek N.T., 27th ed., the original NASB N.T. edition never took full advantage of this new evidence (p75 was first published in 1961, thus affording them plenty of time to adjust their text to this new data'. Can we even believe that these modern versions have got their homework right in relation to the position that they take on textual criticism? As Szesnat's article shows, there is much that is misleading in this connection within the NIV. It is important to note that the Today's New International Version has not really changed the NIV's treatment of text critical matters.

New International Version

Szesnat notes the confusing way that text critical matters are introduced in the preface to the NIV. The preface states (ix-x):
'The Greek text used in translating [the New Testament] ... was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament were used ... In the New Testament, footnotes that refer to uncertainty regarding the original text are introduced by 'Some manuscripts' or similar expressions'.

As Szesnat points out what is the reader to make of this? An "eclectic text"? "Manuscripts"? "Witnesses"? "Original text"? "Best current printed texts"? He says: 'Clearly, it would be most difficult to understand the statement in the NIV's preface without basic text-critical training. It does not present the reader with an explanation of basic text-critical issues—in fact, it almost seems as if the preface has a trained exegete in mind, rather than the ordinary reader'. Szesnat goes on to point out that 'even more problematic is a claim implicit in the preface, namely that footnotes in the NIV are given only if there is "uncertainty" as to the original text. The preface seems to suggest that it is only in those cases noted in the NIV that there is any doubt about the "original text".

He states that this is misleading, 'if only because the NIV gives footnotes in many cases where there would be little 'uncertainty' among the vast majority of textual critics (e.g., Acts 8:37)'

'The NIV offers some 133 text-critical indicators in its text of the New Testament; two of these come in the form of notes within the text itself, the rest by way of footnotes. The format of these footnotes is fairly uniform, with few exceptions: variants are introduced as "some manuscripts
read / add..."(e.g. Mt 5:22) or "some manuscripts omit / do not have..." (e.g. Mt 12:47). It must also be noted that the abbreviations 'Mss' for manuscripts and 'MS' for manuscript, which are sometimes used in the footnotes of the NIV, are never explained. This seems odd, since these
abbreviations are hardly common outside the academic scene.'

In some instances, other indications are given with regard to the number of mss concerned: "a few" (e.g. Mt 27:35); "many" (e.g. Jn 13:32); "one" (only in Acts 10:19 and Heb 10:38); or "other" (only Acts 10:19). In some cases, temporal qualifiers are added: "some late manuscripts
..." (e.g. Mt 5:44); "some early manuscripts..." (e.g. Mk 6:14). In one instance, the variant reading is cited as being supported by "some less important manuscripts" (Jn 5:3)... One wonders though what the ordinary reader is to make of the information given: since no real introduction to textual criticism and the state of the NT text is offered, the reader's imagination is bound to run wild.'

In Mark 16 and John 8 there is some more of an explanation. 'The rather terse note reads: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." But 'what do concepts like 'manuscripts' and 'witnesses' mean? Why are they important? What are 'reliable' or, for that matter, 'unreliable' mss?'

'In a number of cases, the NIV's description of external evidence is unnecessarily simplistic, if not misleading. A typical example is Heb 10:38, where the NIV states in a footnote: "one early manuscript But the righteous". Yet apart from "one early manuscript" (a reference to P13?) this
reading is supported inter alia by the so-called Majority Text...Another example of curious representation of text-critical matters is 1 Thess 3:2, where the NIV translates "Timothy, who is our brother and God's fellow-worker". A footnote states: "some manuscripts brother and fellowworker;
other manuscripts brother and God's servant." This selection is strange given that there are several other variant readings here, including the form that the TR / AV chose ("and servant of God and your fellow worker")'.

'Once or twice the textual variant is reported in ambiguous ways. Acts 13:18 (translated as "he endured their conduct for about 40 years in the desert") sports a foonote after 'conduct' which reads: "Some manuscripts and cared for them". The reader might therefore think that the variant
reading is "he endured their conduct and cared for them for about 40 years in the desert", whereas the translators presumably wanted to refer to the variant "and he cared for them for about 40 years in the desert". The footnote at 2 Pt 2:13 is a similar case.'

What is implied in the NIV is that the age of the mss is the most crucial aspect of textual criticism. But, quite apart from the importance of internal evidence (even if one is not a proponent of radical eclecticism), external evidence hardly works that way'.

The NIV, perhaps unwittingly so, implies an extraordinarily simplistic view that 'early' mss equal 'reliable', 'faithful', or 'accurate' scribes—somewhat akin to the desire of 19th century source critics of the New Testament to find the oldest gospel in the New Testament, assuming that it would necessarily be more 'accurate', or 'reliable', than the others. In this sense, it represents a simplistic, indeed naive, 'search for origins'. On the whole, this gives a rather erroneous impression, if only because it was precisely in the earliest stages of textual transmission that the scribes who copied the New Testament experienced the greatest freedom to alter the text quite deliberately (cf. Aland & Aland 1989;
Ehrman 1993; Parker 1997).

As John Burgo said of the Revised Version
'For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders--(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled 'Various Readings')--which disfigure 'some' or 'many' 'ancient authorities,' can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions.

It can not be defended on the plea of candour,--the candour which is determined that men shall 'know the worst.' 'The worst' has NOT been told: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that it has. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where a 'few,' or 'some,' or 'many ancient authorities' read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain to the record, but the very page itself would not nearly suffice . . . . It is the gross one-sidedness, the patent unfairness, in a critical point of view, of this work...which chiefly shocks and offends us.'

The devotional value of the Westminster Confession

The Westminster Confession of Faith is not simply a document full of doctrinal statements. It has a practical and devotional use for every Christian. It is a document that may be made utterly personal. This is evident from the vows that office-bearers must take when they subscribe it totally in its entirety, without reservation: 'Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God; and do you acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith; and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto..?'

They must own it in a personal way as the confession not simply of the Church but of their own faith. So, they must not only answer affirmatively to this question but then also sign with their name to the written statement "do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith."

They confess publicly that the truths of this document have become their convictions by the work of the illumination of the Holy Spirit on the Word of God. They have come to love them. The fact that they have not written the words themselves is not relevant. It cannot reduce their personal devotion to the truths. They are able to make use of them because it is the same Spirit that has opened the mind and heart to receive them. Paul Woolley comments on the fact that 'most modern people hold the view that a creed is something to be forced, or imposed on other people. That is utterly perverse .... Nothing could be further from the proper function for a creed. It ought to be a very joyful affirmation of the truth which has benefited the affirmant, and which he wants to pass on to others in a clear and simple form.' (Paul Woolley, 'What is a Creed for?' in Scripture and Confession, ed. John H. Skilton, p. 98).

BB Warfield calls attention to some of the reasons as to why the Confession possesses this character. It is because the Westminster divines 'wrote these definitions aiming before all things to be saints: is it strange that we see the saint through the theologian and have our hearts warmed by the contact? Certain it is that the Westminster Standards have a spiritual significance to us which falls in no wise short of their historical and scientific significance.

Open these standards where you will and you will not fail to feel the throb of an elevated and noble spiritual life pulsing through them. They are not merely a notably exact scientific statement of the elements of the gospel: they are, in the strictest sense of the words, the very embodiment of the gospel. They not only know what God is; they know God: and they make their readers know Him—know Him in His infinite majesty, in His exalted dominion, in His unlimited sovereignty, in the immutability of His purpose and His almighty power and universal providence, but know Him also in that strangest, most incomprehensible of all His perfections, the unfathomableness of His love. Their description of Him transcends the just limits of mere definition and swells into a paean of praise—praise to Him who is "most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." And how profound their knowledge is of the heart of man—its proneness to evil, its natural aversion to spiritual good, its slowness of response to spiritual influence, the deviousness of its path even under the leading of the Holy Ghost. But, above all, they know, with a fulness of apprehension which startles and instructs and blesses the reader, the ways of God with the errant souls of men—how He has condescended to open the way to them of having fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, how He has redeemed them unto Himself in the blood of His Son, and how He deals with them, as only a loving Father may, in disciplining and fitting them for the heavenly glory. Where elsewhere may we find more vitally set forth the whole circle of experience in the Christian life—what conversion is and how God operates in bringing the soul to knowledge of Him and faith in its Saviour, what are the joys of justifying grace and of adoption into the family of God, and what the horrors of those temporary lapses that lie in wait for unwary steps, and what the inconceivable tenderness of God's gracious dealings with the stumbling and trembling spirit until He brings it safely home? Who can read those searching chapters on Perseverance and Assurance without feeling his soul burn within him, or without experience of a new influx of courage land patience for the conflicts of life? It is not a singular experience which Dr. Thornwell records, when he sets down in his journal his thanksgiving to God for this blessed Confession. "I bless God," he writes, "for that glorious summary of Christian doctrine contained in our noble Standards. It has cheered my soul in many a dark hour, and sustained me in many a desponding moment." We do not so much require as delight, with consentient mind, in his testimony, when he declares that he knows of "no uninspired production in any language, or of any denomination, that for richness of matter, soundness of doctrine, scriptural expression and edifying tendency can for a moment enter into competition with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms." The Westminster Standards, in a word, are notable monuments of the religious life as well as of theological definition, and, speaking from the point of view of vital religion, this is their significance as a creed.' (BB Warfield 'The Significance of the Westminster standards as a creed: an address delivered before the Presbytery of New York, November 8, 1897, on the occasion of the celebration of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Completion of the Westminster Standards').

John Murray in 'The Work of the Westminster Assembly' wrote similarly. 'The work produced by the Westminster Assembly has lived and will permanently live. The reason is obvious. The work was wrought with superb care, patience, precision, and above all with earnest and intelligent devotion to the Word of God and zeal for His glory. Sanctified theological learning has never been brought to bear with greater effect upon the formulation of the Christian Faith. While it would be dishonoring to the Holy Spirit to accord to these documents a place in any way equal to the Word of God either in principle or in practical effect, yet it would also be dishonoring to the Holy Spirit, who has promised to be with His church to the end, to undervalue or neglect what is the product of His illumination and direction in the hearts and minds of His faithful servants. Other men laboured and we have entered into their labours'.

It should be our delight to find increasing devotional value and spiritual significance within the Confession, simply because its doctrines are the doctrines of Scripture. Devotion must be derived from and feed upon the fulness of the truth. As Thornwell puts it, our devotional requirements will be met in the 'richness of matter, soundness of doctrine, scriptural expression and edifying tendency' of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

true experience

'oh what an empty thing religion should be if it had not this word experience in its grammar; that secret and sure mark whereby the Christian knoweth the scripture is of God; how thus the Lord hath sealed their instruction in a dark plunge; how life and power, enlivening influences, to the melting of their heart have of trysted them in a very dead frame and now they know that verily God heareth prayer; now they are persuaded and have learned by the cross that he is indeed a comforter'
Robert Fleming - The Fulfilling of the Scripture (1669) p.10

The following pages give more information about Robert Fleming.
http://www.mslick.com/fleming.htm

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/fleming_robert.htm

Robert Fleming was born at Bathans in 1630, the son of a minister of the gospel, James Fleming. He studied under Samuel Rutherford.

By the time he was 23, he was a pastor at Cambuslang, in Clydesdale until after the restoration of King Charles II. He had seven children by Christina Hamilton. He lived at Edinburgh until September of 1673 when "all the ministers in and about Edinburgh were called to appear before the Council to hear their sentence, and repair to the places of their confinement." He chose not to appear. As a result, he was persued, eventually apprehended, and imprisoned in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. After his release he went to Holland.

He had a custom established from sometime around his sixteenth or seventeenth year of age "to set apart the first day of every year for renewing his covenant with God; and if interrupted that day, to take the next day following." Following is a sample taken from his journal.

1691. In the entry of this new year, as I have now done for many years most solemnly, I desire again to renew my personal engaging of myself to the Lord my God, and for Him, and with my whole heart and desire to enter myself into His service, and take on His blessed yoke, and humbly to lay claim, take, and embrace Him (O Him!) To be my God, my all, my light, and my salvation, my shield, and exceeding great reward." ("The Scots Worthies," by John Howie, of Lochgoin. Edingburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson, & Ferrier, 1870, page 574)

He produced many works: Confirming Work of Religion, Epistolary Discourse, and The Fulfilling of the Scriptures.

He left behind a writing called, A Short Index of some of the Great Appearances of the Lord in the Dispensations of His Providence to His Poor Servant." Apparently, the Lord moved miraculously upon Robert Fleming. Following are excerpts taken from that work and recording in Scots Worthies on pages 578 - 560.

3. The strange and extraordinary impression I had of an audible voice in the church at night, when, being a child, I had got up to the pulpit, calling me to make haste.

10. The extraordinary dream and marvelous vision I had, twice repeated, with the inexpressible joy after the same.

21. The dream at Boussay, wherein I got such express warning as to my wife's removal, with the Lord's marvelous appearance and presence the Thursday after, at St. Johnston's.

24. Those great and signal confirmations give me at my wife's death, and that great extraordinary voice, so distinct and clear, which I heard a few nights after her death.

34. The remarkable warning I was forced to give, that some present should be taken away by death before next Lord's-day.

Unity of Visible Church in Song of Solomon

James Durham shows how the Song of Solomon teaches the unity of the catholic visible church. When he speaks of subdivisions and particular churches he is referring to different national churches. It is important to bear in mind the remarks of James Walker:

'The visible church, in the idea of the Scottish theologians, is catholic. You have not an indefinite number of Parochial, or Congregational, or National churches, constituting, as it were, so many ecclesiastical individualities, but one great spiritual republic, of which these various organizations form a part. The visible church is not a genus, so to speak, with so many species under it. It is thus you may think of the State, but the visible church is a totum integrale, it is an empire. The churches of the various nationalities constitute the provinces of this empire; and though they are so far independent of each other, yet they are so one, that membership in one is membership in all, and separation from one is separation from all . . . This conception of the church, of which, in at least some aspects, we have practically so much lost sight, had a firm hold of the Scottish theologians of the seventeenth century.' Dr. James Walker in The Theology of Theologians of Scotland. (Edinburgh: Rpt. Knox Press, 1982) Lecture iv. pp.95-6.

It should be clear that Durham shared the view of all the Second Reformation divines who 'had such a conception of the importance of the unity of the church, and such a horror of the evil of schism, and were so firmly convinced that anyone who withdrew from church communion without absolute cause, that is without feeling assured that he could not remain in such fellowship without committing sin, was guilty of a most heinous offence, that they were ready to give their most favorable consideration to any sort of suggestion of reasons why they should refuse to go out of a church, notwithstanding the existence in it of many corruptions against which they must protest.'

http://www.naphtali.com/articles/schism-separatism/the-sin-of-schism/

Song 6 Verse 2. My Beloved is gone down into his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies.

He is 'gone down to his garden,' which implieth the similitude, formerly expressed, of a man's retiring from his chamber or closet to his garden: this 'garden' signifies the church, as chap. 4:12,15, and here, as opposed to gardens, in the words following, it holdeth forth the catholic visible church, as gardens signify particular societies, or congregations: the church is like a garden that is within one precinct, yet divided into divers quarters and inclosures: this being the church that hath the promise of Christ's presence, and where he is ever to be found, must be understood of no particular church, of which that cannot be asserted, that Christ shall be always there: it must therefore be the catholic church, distinguished from particular churches, or gardens.

2. He is gone 'to the beds of spices:' as gardens have distinct plots of flowers, and beds of spices, and some particular parts are allotted for these, where especially they grow; so in the church Christ hath his plants, whereof some are sanctified with grace (therefore compared to spices) and these, in some parts of the visible church, are more abounding than in other parts, (as spices in beds together, that may be elsewhere but in particular stalks and not so frequent) and as men love and frequent that plot of their garden most; so doth Christ most manifest himself in his ordinances ordinarily, where he hath his spices and lilies in greatest abundance: and thus this last part qualifies the former, he is in his church, but especially where his spices are most abounding: and therefore would you have him? Seek him in his church and amongst his people, and especially in such societies of his people, where true and lively believers are most to be found.

Here observe (besides what was observed on chap. 4:12,) Christ's church, tho' it have many subdivisions, yet is it one church; one whole catholic church, whereof particular churches are parts, 1 Cor. 12:28.

2. It is in that church and no where else, that Christ's presence is to be found, and where believers, the spices and lilies are planted.

3. There may be, in that one visible church, many more real converts in one part thereof, than in another; 'spices' in 'beds' are not in every place of the 'garden.'

4. Tho' Christ hath a singular care of, and respect for, his whole church, and hath a peculiar presence there wherever there is any part thereof, yet where he hath much people, beyond what he hath in other places (as in Antioch, Acts 11:21, in Corinth, Acts 18:10, and Ephesus, Acts 19:20,) there especially is he present, and there ordinarily continues he the power and life of his ordinances.

5. Those who desire Christ, should not run out of the church to seek him, or expect any way of finding him, which others have not found out before them but should seek after him by the ordinary means, in his church; for, this answers their question, 'Where is he?' proposed for that end, that they might seek him and find him.

Song 6 verse 9. My dove, my undefiled is but one.

She is one, which sets her out not only with unity in her affections, but (to say so) with a kind of oneness in herself: thus the visible catholic church is one garden, verse 2, comprehending many beds of spices; one church, made up here of many particular churches: and thus, oneness or unity is a great commendation to her, or a special part of her excellency.

Social Epidemics

Some popular non-fiction books can be worthwhile. I haven't read this one, but 'The Tipping Point' by Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting sound to it. The main focus is upon why things can change so quickly and unexpectedly. Sometimes the smallest changes can effect the greatest results. Certain messages have a stickiness factor that means that they have an impact that lasts through being memorable while others are easily forgotten.

Gladwell believes that ideas and behaviour and messages and products sometimes behave just like outbreaks of infectious disease. They are social epidemics.

An idea, trend or social behaviour can be contagious in exactly the same way that a virus is. One chapter, for example, deals with the very strange epidemic of teenage suicide in the South Pacific islands of Micronesia. In the 1970's and 1980's, Micronesia had teen suicide rates ten times higher than anywhere else in the world. Teenagers were literally being infected with the suicide bug, and one after another they were killing themselves in exactly the same way under exactly the same circumstances. Gladwell also asks: Isn't this the explanation for the current epidemic of teen smoking in this country? No generation has been better educated about the dangers – yet they persist. And what about the rash of mass shootings in the USA over past years?

Gladwell believes this can be positive too, but it's worth thinking about social epidemics. Why is crime contagious? The book refers to the problem of fare-beating on the New York subway – this snowballed simply because people joined in after watching others do it. One explanation is that if people can see prohibited behaviour as marginally accepted and permissible with no significant consequences they will follow suit. Gladwell gets tied up with nature versus nurture – whether our environment shapes us or whether it is down to genetics and personality. He refers to the Broken Windows Theory which argues that crime is the inevitable result of disorder – that crime is contagious and the criminal is prompted to commit crimes based on his perceptions of the world around him. An alternative view believes that the criminal is a personality type. Peter Hitchens' book 'A Brief History of Crime' is a discerning analysis of this crime crisis that the UK has descended into. Hosea 4:1-2 'Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood'

To these things we must say to our politicians and rulers as well as to the sociologists, as with Anselm in his book 'Cur Deus Homo': 'You have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin'. This is what underlies any destructive social epidemic.

adding to the Word of God

The Better Bibles Blog is not one that supports the Authorised Version but in an even-handed way it has commended its accuracy.

http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/08/inserting-words-into-text.html

"Here are a few examples of where a word has been inserted into the English text of Bibles. Only the KJV doesn't do this. That is one thing you can be comfortable with in the KJV. And if words are added they now appear in italics."

The examples provided include 1 Cor. 2:1 "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." KJV

The TNIV has added the word "human".

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. TNIV

In 1 Cor. 1:7 modern versions add a word, this time the word "spiritual" to read spiritual gifts. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: KJV

In Romans 12:19 we read "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath" KJV
But even the NASB which is more literal than others adds the words "of God" to read "wrath of God".

Sabbath public transport - the historical view

Some people think that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland position opposing the use of public transport on the Sabbath is rather idiosyncratic and divides them from the rest of the Christian world unnecessarily. They think it is rather extreme, but they fail to realise that it is warranted by Scripture and that godly men of the past have taken the same view.

The use of public transport on the Sabbath is against Scripture because it is a commercial transaction taking place on the Sabbath requiring someone to work for a purpose other than that of necessity and mercy. The traveller is effectively hiring the transport and the driver and employing someone on the Sabbath. A clear provision and consequence of the fourth commandment is that we cannot employ someone or make them work on the sabbath, 'the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates' (Exodus 20:10).

As Thomas Boston put it – this is a commandment that prohibits 'all handy-labour or servile employments tending to our worldly gain'. Public transport is being run on the Sabbath for the purposes of profit and the traveller is involved in this commercial enterprise. Chapter 11 of The History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1893-1970, which can be viewed at http://www.puritans.net/news/FPCSchapter11.pdf outlines the reasons that the Free Presbyterian Church took this stand. As the Synod in 1928 put it It...is wrong - wrong, because, in itself it is, and claims to be, nothing more or less than a piece of worldly, "week-day" business, conducted on worldly, "week-day" lines, and transacted on God's holy day in which "He challengeth a special propriety for Himself' - wrong on the part of the payee, because, without deference, implied or expressed, to what the Fourth Commandment prohibits, on the one hand, or allows, on the other, he, as a contracting party, carries forward into the business of the Lord's Day the same mercenary aims, the same working conditions, and the same contract terms which he lawfully and necessarily employs on the six days during which, God says, "thou shalt do all thy work" and wrong on the part of the payer, because, as the other contracting party, by availing himself of the service, and by paying the stipulated fare, he voluntarily, and for the most part, cheerfully accommodates himself to these aims and conditions and accepts these terms. Nor can any amount or species of motive serve to make it right.'

It is quite clear that the paying traveller cannot remain guiltless in using this transport: 'Any use made of them on the part of an individual entails the giving by that individual of a certain proportionate moral and material contribution towards the support of the evil, thereby making him a party to it and involving him in the guilt of it.'

'This may appear in the case of some to constitute a hardship in so far as it precludes them from worshipping under conditions to which they had formerly accustomed themselves. The Synod believe, however, that in the end this will be found to be a hardship in appearance only; that the difficulty of it will be seen to have yielded to the forces of faith and faithfulness; and that the compensations of obedience to the truth and of preserving a conscience void of offence toward God and man are more than sufficient to counter-balance any amount of specious comfort foregone and of inconvenience suffered. "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy commandments."

In order to be consistent the church that does not bar those using public transport on the sabbath from sealing ordinances cannot bar those driving and operating such public transport on the sabbath. And if one form of employment in the realm of worldly gain can be permitted then to be consistent no type of employment on the Lord's Day can be made a matter of discipline. So the church that is consistent in this way will be left with no witness against the breach of the Sabbath whatsoever.

Witness against Sabbath public transport in the past

Those that profane the Lord's Day for worldly gain are like those that profaned the Lord's house with their profiteering money-changing. The Church has always treated this as breach of the Fourth Commandment. The Church of Scotland in the 1640s passed Acts against those that set sail in boats on the sabbath and proceeded in discipline against masters that allowed their servants to work on the sabbath even though it was not in their direct employ.

Previous generations understood this clearly. Evangelicals across the ecclesiastical spectrum were staunchly united against public transport on the sabbath. The prominent Anglican evangelical JC Ryle wrote: 'When I speak of public desecration of the Sabbath, I mean those many open, unblushing practices, which meet the eye on Sundays in the neighbourhood of large towns. I refer to the practice of keeping shops open, and buying and selling on Sundays. I refer especially to Sunday pleasure excursions by public transport and the opening of places of public amusement; and to the daring efforts which many are making in the present day to desecrate the Lord's Day, regardless of its Divine authority.

Last, but not least, these ways of spending Sunday inflict a cruel injury on the souls of multitudes of people, Public transport cannot be run on Sundays without employing thousands of persons if people will make Sunday a day for travelling and excursions. Entertainments cannot be opened on Sundays without the employment of many to cater for those who patronise them. And have not all these unfortunate persons immortal souls? Do they not all need a, day of rest as much as anyone else? Beyond doubt they do. But Sunday is no Sunday to them, so long as these public desecrations of the Sabbath are permitted. Their life becomes a long unbroken chain of work, work, unceasing work: in short, what is play to others becomes death to them.'

The Drummond Tract Enterprise in Stirling had its foundation in protest against breach of the Sabbath. In 1848 Peter Drummond published a series of tracts against taking the ferry across the river for Sabbath picnics at Cambuskenneth Abbey, and he also sought to prevent the trains running on the Sabbath. An edition of ten thousand copies of the tract, entitled 'The Sabbath' was exhausted within a month.

Robert Murray McCheyne opposed those seeking to run the railways for profit on the sabbath. “Unhappy men, who are striving to rob our beloved Scotland of this day of double blessing, "ye know not what you do." You would wrest from our dear countrymen the day when God opens the windows of heaven and pours down a blessing. You want to make the heavens over Scotland like brass, and the hearts of our people like iron. Is it the sound of the golden bells of our ever-living High Priest on the mountains of our land, and the breathing of His Holy Spirit over so many of our parishes, that has roused up your satanic exertions to drown the sweet sound of mercy by the deafening roar of railway carriages? Is it the returning vigour of the revived and chastened Church of Scotland that has opened the torrents of blasphemy which you pour forth against the Lord of the Sabbath? Have your own withered souls no need of a drop from heaven? May it not be the case that some of you are blaspheming the very day on which your own soul might have been saved? Is it not possible that some of you may remember, with tears of anguish in hell, the exertions which you are now making, against light and against warning, to bring down a withering blight on your own souls and the religion of Scotland?”

John Kennedy also spoke out forthrightly against Sabbath trains:
“What a contrast a Scottish Sabbath now presents to that of earlier times – to that even of the generation which has just passed away! Think of our railway trains rushing over all parts of the country with their thousands of passengers, disturbing the Sabbath quiet and tempting so many to forget that there is a “God in the earth who judgeth righteously” – think of so many open shops along the streets of our cities, on the day of rest, which is the day of God, and receiving such support as tempts ungodly men to extend the traffic – think of the increasing crowds of those to whom the Sabbath has become a day of amusements, who never think of entering a place of worship, and who by their conduct prove that vice is the ally of ungodliness – think of how even those, who are not prepared utterly to abandon the public worship of God, are beginning to act as if an enforced partial attendance in the courts of God’s house earns for them a right to do what they please on what remains of the Sabbath – think, too, of the easy tolerance of such practices already so apparent in the unfaithful supineness both of the Church and of the State while all this desecration of the Sabbath is in progress – and what a contrast the Scottish Sabbath of today presents to that of times gone by! And what unspeakably greater contrast is the present observance of the day of the Lord to “what is required in the Fourth Commandment”!”

In 1868 James Begg opposed the desecration of the Sabbath by unnecessary employment of cabs on the Lord's Day. In the meeting of Presbytery in January, he stated that he and others had had an interview with the magistrates of the city on the subject. "There was," he said, "an impression abroad that there was an obligation on the part of cab-proprietors to place their cabs on the stances on the Lord's-day; but they had succeeded in obtaining from the magistrates a contradiction of that impression."

In America at an earlier stage the Presbyterian Church was stirred up to a defence of the Sabbath. The 1836 General Assembly declared that “the owners of stock in the steam boats, canals, rail roads, &c. who are in the habit of violating the Sabbath, are lending their property and their influence to one of the most wide-spread, alarming, and deplorable systems of Sabbath desecration, which now grieve the hearts of the pious and disgrace the church of God.” Instead they urged that “the friends of the Lord's day” should “establish such means of public conveyance as shall relieve the friends of the Sabbath from the necessity under which they now labour, of travelling at any time in vehicles which habitually violate that holy day; and thus prevent them from being partakers in other men's sins, in this respect.”
The noted presbyterian minister Samuel Miller took the leading part in the preparation of this motion. The strength of the opposition expressed is remarkable even to denounce sabbath transport as tending to 'disgrace the church of God' and to be 'partakers in other men's sins'.

In 1855 the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, U.S.A., under the title, 'Monitory Letters to Church Members'. One of these is a 'Letter to one who travels on the Sabbath'. Part of that letter reads as follows: 'You find yourself distant a hundred and fifty miles from home on Saturday night; and you ask whether you are not justified in spending the night in a steamboat, and reaching home early the next morning, rather than remain where you are, and perhaps spend the Sabbath in a hotel. I am to say, I think not. For, take the best view of the case you can, you certainly pervert several hours of the Sabbath to a worldly purpose; or if you say that you do nothing worse than sleep, the answer is, that the boat in which you travel is not managed by sleepers, and that you patronize a systematic violation of God's holy day.'

Certain owners of hired carriage businesses in the USA were keen to advertise that they were maintaining their business on Sabbath-keeping principles. In 1859 in Pittsburgh had passed strict blue laws, which were then used against the very Presbyterians who had urged their passage. Two prominent Presbyterian laymen, Mr. Logan and Judge Lowrie, were fined in October for hiring men to drive their carriage to church on the sabbath.

These examples could be multiplied but they serve to demonstrate that the FP position in relation to public transport on the sabbath is neither novel nor extreme but simply an unchanged position in continuity with the godly men of the past.