Bernard on Loving God

One of Calvin's favourite Church Fathers was Bernard of Clairvaux (for more see here and here). 

He may have had his faults, but he believed in truly free grace and Bernard's treatise "On Loving God" is perhaps his richest writing (listen to it here). 

"He gave Himself for us unworthy wretches? And being God, what better gift could He offer than Himself? Hence, if one seeks for God's claim upon our love here is the chiefest: Because He first loved us (I John 4:19)" Chapter I, 5.

"So it behoves us, if we would have Christ for a frequent guest, to fill our hearts with faithful meditations on the mercy He showed in dying for us, and on His mighty power in rising again from the dead. ... surely there is proof enough and to spare in that Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification, and ascended into heaven that He might protect us from on high, and sent the Holy Spirit for our comfort. Hereafter He will come again for the consummation of our bliss. In His Death He displayed His mercy, in His Resurrection His power; both combine to manifest His glory." - Chapter III, 5.

"What could result from the contemplation of compassion so marvelous and so undeserved, favor so free and so well attested, kindness so unexpected, clemency so unconquerable, grace so amazing except that the soul should withdraw from all sinful affections, reject all that is inconsistent with God's love, and yield herself wholly to heavenly things? No wonder is it that the Bride, moved by the perfume of these unctions, runs swiftly, all on fire with love, yet reckons herself as loving all too little in return for the Bridegroom's love. And rightly, since it is no great matter that a little dust should be all consumed with love of that Majesty which loved her first and which revealed itself as wholly bent on saving her. For 'God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life' (John 3:16). This sets forth the Father's love. But 'He hath poured out His soul unto death,' was written of the Son (Isa. 53:12). And of the Holy Spirit it is said, 'The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you' (John 14:26). It is plain, therefore, that God loves us, and loves us with all His heart; for the Holy Trinity altogether loves us, if we may venture so to speak of the infinite and incomprehensible Godhead who is essentially one." - Chapter IV, 5.

principia ecclesia

This excellent lecture on church principles made me think a little about the first principles of the Church.

There are first (foundational) principles and derived principles. First principles are self-evident truths that as postulates cannot be derived or deduced from any other truths. Aristotle writes that first principles are the primary source from which anything is, becomes or is known.

The Church is not a first principle in itself but derived. The first principles of the Church are the same as those for religion and theology. The foundation of being for the Church is God himself (principium essendi). It is the Church of God. Without God the Church has no meaning or being and no knowledge of God - all of which originate in himself (Matthew 11:27 and 1 Cor. 2:10). Only God's knowledge of himself is complete and exhaustive, the Church's knowledge of Him is while true - creaturely, finite and dependent.

This brings us to how the Church gains its knowledge. The external foundation of knowing for the Church is the Holy Scriptures which are the Word of God. This is God's special revelation of Himself or self-communication. The Scriptures are the constitutive principle of the Church. It has only regulative, ministerial and limited power to teach and to observe all things that have been commanded in Scripture (nothing more or less). It is therefore free from the commandments and doctrines of men which are not only contrary to but beside the Word of God.

What Herman Bavinck says concerning theology could be said concerning the Church:
“The fact that theology exists we owe solely to God, to his self-consciousness, to his good pleasure [God as principium essendi]. But the means, the way, by which that knowledge of God reaches us is God’s revelation… This is implied in the nature of the thing. Other people only become knowable to us when they reveal themselves to us, i.e. mainfest their presence, speak, or act… The same is true in the case of the Lord our God; his knowledge, too, flows to us only through the channel of his revelation. Furthermore, that revelation, too, can only be his appearance, his word, and his deed. Accordingly, the principle by which we know (principium cognoscendi), the principle of theology, is the self-revelation or self-communication of God to his creatures.”

The internal foundation of knowing is the work of the Holy Spirit (principium cognoscendi internum) “the illumination of human beings by God’s Spirit” - working faith in the heart (Rom. 10:17; Gal 3:3; Heb 11:1-3). Bavinck writes: “"We do not only confess a ‘principium externum’ i.e. Holy Scripture, but also a ‘principium internum’ i.e. the Holy Spirit, who dwelling in the church makes the things of the kingdom known to her."”
"“Accordingly, the confession of the church can be called the dogma quoad nos or the truth of God as it has been taken up in the consciousness of the church and confessed by it in its own language".

Bavinck also notes concerning these principles: "These three are one in the respect that they have God as author and one identical knowledge of God as their content". One can see how some have been able to discern a trinitarian dimension to these foundational principles if one associates the external principle of knowing particularly with the Eternal Son as Logos or the Word.

From these foundations or first principles the general principles of the Church are derived. We can consider these later.

sola scriptura

sola Scriptura: Scripture alone; the watchword of the Reformation in its establishment of the basis for a renewed and reformed statement of Christian doctrine. We find the concept of sola Scriptura, Scripture alone as the primary and absolute norm of doctrine, at the foundation of the early Protestant attempts at theological system in the form of exegetical loci communes, or common places. In the orthodox or scholastic codification of Lutheran and Reformed doctrine, the sola Scriptura of the Reformers was elaborated as a separate doctrinal locus placed at the beginning of theological system and determinative of its contents. Scripture was identified as the principium cognoscendi, the principle of knowing or cognitive foundation of theology, and described doctrinally in terms of its authority, clarity, and sufficiency in all matters of faith and morals.

Finally, it ought to be noted that sola Scriptura was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition as a subordinate norm in theology. The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, one party viewing the two as coequal norms, the other party viewing Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing tradition a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statement. The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox held the latter view, on the assumption that tradition was a useful guide, that the trinitarian and christological statements of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon were expressions of biblical truth, and that the great teachers of the church provided valuable instruction in theology that always needed to be evaluated in the light of Scripture. We encounter, particularly in the scholastic era of Protestantism, a profound interest in the patristic period and a critical, but often substantive, use of ideas and patterns enunciated by the medieval doctors.

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), 284.

How worldly am I?

First, what are the objects before your mind in times of recreation? What do your thoughts most run upon?
Second, what are the objects of your choice? When you have to decide how to spend an evening or the Sabbath afternoon, what do you select?
Third, which occasions you the most sorrow, the loss of earthly things, or lack of communion with God?
Which causes greater grief (or chagrin), the spoiling of your plans, or the coldness of your heart to Christ?
Fourth, what is your favorite topic of conversation? Do you hanker after the news of the day, or to meet with those who talk of the “altogether lovely” One?
Fifth, do your “good intentions” materialize, or are they nothing but empty dreams? Are you spending more or less time than formerly on your knees? Is the Word sweeter to your taste, or has your soul lost its relish for it?

A. W. Pink, Profiting from the Word (Banner of Truth, 1970) found here

The knowledge that we need

Man does not know himself or God truly. He does not know the greatness of his sin and misery. Neither does he know where he is going. He knoweth not his time, there is not a heart in him to be wise and understand his latter end, numbering up his days and so applying his heart to wisdom. We read in Ecclesiastes that ‘the labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city’. Man does not know the way to everlasting life unless the Scriptures reveal it to him and even then he will seek to follow his own way and not heed the clear instruction of the Word. At the beginning of Pilgrim’s Progress we witness a man all deserted, with the burden of sin upon his back, he is reading in the book, weeping and trembling and crying out: ‘What shall I do?’ There is a man with some knowledge but he has not that saving knowledge that he requires. O what a pitiable condition.

There is a paradox in religion also that although there may be much knowledge about religious things, about God and his requirements, there is no true and real experimental and saving knowledge of God. This was true of the Pharisees of whom Christ said that they knew neither him nor his Father. It was true of the Jews of Paul’s day. They had the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. He bore record of them that they had a zeal of God but not according to knowledge, For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. If they knew truly the righteous character of God and what he requires they would never be so zealous to seek to establish their own righteousness. Paul knew himself that he trusted in many religious privileges but yet it was all nothing to him when he came to a true experimental knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. We read in Hosea that God ‘desired mercy, and not sacrifice; the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings’.  You must be clear as to this, it is not your religious privileges or observances that will make you right with God, you must come to a saving knowledge of God by faith.

How many books? #3

Returning to books, W.S Plumer records the following in relation to Psalm 27:4. 'When some one admired Leighton's library, he said: "One devout thought is worth more than it all." He was right'. 'When we have a good thought or desire, we must not yield it up to temptation, but hold on to it and cherish it'.

The reference is not to Lord Leighton but to the godly but misguided prelate Robert Leighton. It is not a reference to Leighton's Newbattle library but to his Dunblane Library. True to his sentiments, Leighton bequeathed his books to the Cathedral of Dunblane in Scotland, to remain there for the use of the Clergy of that Diocese, thankfully not to remain a diocese for many years after. The library was opened in the year 1688. Various books have been lost over the years c.100. I remember a summer job over 10 years ago was to remove and store the books while work was being done to the library building.

Leighton filled his library with the best books of divinity then available and numerous markings and pencillings show his avid reading of authors such as Richard Sibbes. It appears that next to his Bible his most treasured book was a miniature pocket edition carried everywhere "Of the Imitation by Christ" by Thomas A Kempis which we quoted from at the end of 'How Many Books? #1'. There were notes upon all the margins, many of which no doubt were devout thoughts...

"his passing is epochal"

This obituary puts some words on an event that is very difficult to describe. Some sermons from "one of the great teaching ministries anywhere in post-war Scotland" (also here).

Adam's knowledge

When God had created all things, he ‘saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good’.  God looked upon man, body and soul and he saw that he was very good.  Man was also created in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness with dominion over the creatures.  We read that when the image of God is renewed it is ‘renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him’ (Col. 3:10). It is apparent that the reference is to the original image of God in Adam for when something is renewed it must have once been possessed but now lost. What was this knowledge that Adam possessed as he came from the hand of God?  It was primarily moral and spiritual but it is important to recognise that man’s knowledge naturally speaking is nothing now to what Adam had before he fell.

Adam’s natural knowledge was perfect, not in the sense of being infinite or exhaustive but because his faculties of understanding, discernment and memory were not impaired by sin and the fall, he would have had a full knowledge of things and their nature. This was seen when the animals were brought to Adam. They came as it were to acknowledge their lord who was crowned with this glory and honour, that all things were put under his feet. God delegated to Adam as one that had dominion over the creatures the authority to give them their names. This signified his authority – ‘whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof’. What an insight and understanding he possessed to discern the nature and characteristics of a creature in so short a time and to assign it an appropriate name. What a naturalist might take years to understand about a living organism Adam was able to fathom in a short while. No doubt the knowledge that he possessed, as one in harmony and fellowship with God, was also God-given. He was placed in the garden to dress it and keep it. This meant that he would have had a full understanding of that which he was appointed to steward and attend to. He knew the best ways to preserve them and care for each creature and organism according to their nature. We do not know fully what his service entailed but we know that he rendered a perfect service.

His knowledge of the nature of things would have been of service to him spiritually. ‘He that is spiritual judgeth [or discerneth] all things’. The Lord Jesus Christ instructs us to consider the nature and characteristics of created things and to draw spiritual instruction from them. Everything would have been full of spiritual profit in this way to the holy discernment of Adam. Even after the fall certain things are apparent to man. Man after the fall must acknowledge that ‘that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead’ (Romans 1:19-20). We do not know all that Adam was able to read in the book of Nature but we know that sin has darkened our minds to this and would seek to deny even what is clearly manifest. He knew at any rate what it was to have contentment with all that God had given to him, he knew by experience that to be spiritually minded is life and peace. He knew nothing else.

Men boast of their advancement in knowledge but their capacities and understanding are nothing to what Adam possessed.  Adam’s thoughts and desires were well ordered and had not the disorder of sin. His thoughts would have been kept under the government of his will so that he would not have found himself distracted with a multitude of thoughts but would have been able to concentrate upon one thing without distraction and follow a thought through to its ultimate conclusion unerringly and without deviation. His powers of reason and understanding were perfect.

Much more wonderful in Adam, however, was the moral knowledge that his soul possessed. God made man upright.  His knowledge was upright. What he knew and how he came to understand it was altogether regulated according to a holy nature. He had the law of God written upon his heart and conscience.  The conscience was not restrained or impaired by sin in any way but witnessed fully to the spirituality and breadth of the law of God. He delighted in the knowledge of the law of God after the inward man. It revealed to him the character of God. He had the revealed will of God not only in his heart but there was also a sign given to him to show and prove his obedience and love of God in a simple outward way. That was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from which he was forbidden to eat. He had the opportunity of making an open demonstration of his knowledge of the holiness that God requires and his delight in that. Holiness unto the Lord was written across all his actions and thoughts. He understood in a real experimental and perfect sense what that means – whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God

The knowledge that he had was also spiritual and experimental. He was made a living soul, spiritually alive towards God. He knew God in a holy and perfect way. He was in covenant with God, brought into the secret of his covenant. God promised life to Adam in his covenant – this was implicit in the threatening of death upon disobedience – life was promised upon perfect obedience. ‘With length of days unto his mind, I will him satisfy’. What was said of the second Adam could be said of the type: ‘because my great name he hath known, I will him set on high’. O surely the soul of Adam, as one who had the breath of God in it and was made a living soul, surely that was borne along sweetly by the gales of the Holy Spirit upon it. Surely his soul was set on high, made like the chariots of Amminadib. The favour of God shone upon him, His countenance was lifted upon him to give him peace. He knew Him in the bond of adoption or sonship, as one who was called the son of God.  He knew God face to face as a man speaketh with his friend. He dwelt within the veil and walked with God upon this earth. The Spirit of God that ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God’ was surely revealing such things to Adam.  He knew what the worship of God was. The worship of the Sabbath day was heaven upon earth in Eden. We do not know how soon Adam fell but we know that he had at least one Sabbath, the very first which God hallowed and blessed. Eden means delights and the chief delight there was communion with God whose presence tabernacled with man.

Although man had such a high provision of knowledge the devil came to tempt him to sin in this area. The temptation was that God had reserved some greater knowledge that they might have had and kept it from them. God was holding them down, Satan implied. This was within their grasp and he insinuated that it was their right as it were to lay hold on it. There was an independent source of knowledge open to them – they would not need to be dependent upon God any more. ‘For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil’.  The lust in the heart of the woman was after this higher knowledge that the devil held out to her since she saw that the tree was ‘to be desired to make one wise’. The feet that hasted sinned. There was a rushing headlong into what had been forbidden. Man fell – his soul lost the knowledge that he had in reaching after knowledge that he could never had. The devil had promised that their eyes would be opened and indeed their eyes were opened to see themselves stripped of the glory and dignity that they had. They now had a practical knowledge of evil and became unable to spiritual good. How blinded many are by the devil – they do not see that he only promises to them that which they cannot possess and which will be their eternal ruin.

O what we have lost in Adam – the glory and dignity of it. The crown is fallen from our heads indeed, what a thief and extortioner sin is that has robbed us of so rich and glorious an estate and inheritance. Our head was held aloft to heaven in him, but now through sin our eyes and minds are set upon earthly things. Man is a ruined temple – only a little of the glory and magnificence that he one possessed can now be discerned.

How many books? #2

The puritan Thomas Fuller put things in a more succinct way than the previous post attempted to do: "A few books well chosen, and well made use of will be more profitable than a great confused Alexandrian library." Perhaps Samuel Johnson was aware of this when he said famously, "Books like friends, should be few and well-chosen." Fuller was a very prolific and extensive writer, there were 11 volumes of The Church History of Britain (1655) for instance. How many of his own books were among the "few chosen"? 

How might we identify "a few books well chosen"? As to lists - usually I don't concur entirely with their contents but I quite like this one. We might ask various questions of the book. Does the book promote holiness of life either by precept or example? Does the book extend knowledge and understanding usefully? Does the book promote spiritual edification? The best books are well-defined by Thomas Watson, however:

"Get books into your houses, when you have not the spring near you, then get some water into your cisterns; so when you have not that wholesome preaching that you desire, good books are cisterns that hold the water of life in them to refresh you; So, when you find a chillness upon your souls, and that your former heat begins to abate, ply yourselves with warm clothes, get those good books that may acquaint you with such truths as may warm and affect your hearts." 

How many books?

"The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." 2 Timothy 4:13.

As Spurgeon points out, even an apostle needed books. Paul needed books, more than one book, at least a few. Yet hardly a few thousand when they had to be brought. We emphasise that he needed books not that he was a book addict.

Paul was awaiting his martyrdom just as was Tyndale in 1535 when incarcerated in Vilvoorde Castle near Brussels. He wrote to the prison governor requesting him kindly to let him have his Hebrew Bible, Hebrew grammar books and a Hebrew dictionary, as well as warmer clothing for the coming winter.

I suffer greatly from cold in the head and am afflicted with perpetual catarrh. I ask to have a lamp in the evening; it is indeed wearisome sitting alone in the dark. Most of all I beg and beseech Your Clemency to urge the Commissary that he will kindly permit me to have the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew grammar and Hebrew dictionary, that I may pass the time in that study.

It was not long before those that were burning his translation of the Scriptures into English were able to have him garrotted and his body burnt at the stake.

The fact that Paul writes "especially the parchments" shows a particular regard for the Scriptures. These he cannot do without. The books may have been his own or those of other men and of particular value but no book has anything approaching the value of the Bible.

Reading has so declined that we can feel it needs all possible emphasis. Spurgeon's application of this verse is very appropriate:
You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying.

We are well able to stop short of reading real books by skimming information on the internet or reading popular books with no real content and more comfortable with it too. But we are also able to use books in order to avoid the real labour of engaging with the Scriptures for ourselves. Our lives are more than saturated with extraneous information. It doesn't take a professional to diagnose the fact that this deluge washes away our concentration never mind our productivity and creativity. The modern phenomenon of infoglut - being flooded with more information than we can process with the knowledge that there is always more queuing up for us - is not just a data problem it can also be a problem in scanning an overstocked library and thinking that any and every book must be held onto tenaciously "just in case" or because given world enough and time we will actually open its covers one day. Electronic books will probably increase rather than reduce this problem since we can store more and more and the fact that we can access any at instant speed may induce paralysis in deciding which to select.

Books are to be read and used; they're not window dressing or commodities. This brings us to the main point. How many books? Surely no more than necessary. That necessity will be related to our calling.

After sending some more unused books to the attic to join the rest it was providential to come across these reflections here and here. I particularly valued these thoughts:
How many books do you have? If you serve in the first world, the answer is almost certainly more than you need; it’s often more than you can justify; and it’s sometimes more than you can accommodate.

These reflections are more valuable than a cult of minimalism for its own sake (although some attempt at minimalism probably wouldn't hurt most of us). Is it relevant that those that have contributed most probably have had the smallest libraries? ANS Lane points out that "Calvin was very skilled at reading the minimum and making the maximum use of it". Surely that is a minimalism to aspire to. Thomas Boston was someone with an exceedingly scarce library but was nevertheless a powerful theologian. Debates continue as to what books Bunyan had access to, evidently a little more than his Bible and concordance but probably not much more and certainly entirely overshadowed by his use of these as his bibline writings demonstrate.

We are not disparaging books - many have received a blessing for eternity from them. As the Puritans would have put it - we need to be less like the butterfly in flitting from flower to flower and more like the bee in selecting the flowers that will yield most and spending time in extracting what we need. We need to be more selective about what we buy, what we read and why. We need to ask ourselves how this will profit ourselves and others in glorifying and enjoying God aright. Rev. James S. Sinclair wrote that: "The value of good books is not be estimated by their commercial price...The value of good books is to be reckoned according to the amount of moral and spiritual benefit they are fitted to convey to the understanding, heart and life of men. A bargain is only a bargain if it is going to be useful. A interesting set of notes in relation to this is found here. This begins with the searching words of Thomas A Kempis:

When the day of judgment comes, inquiry will not be made of us of what we have read, but what we have done, not how well we have spoken, but how piously we have lived (Imitation of Christ I.3.4).

M'Crie on Baptism #1

Although over 200 years old (published in 1801) Thomas M'Crie's Lectures on Christian Baptism remain a useful classic work on this subject. He describes it as "the result of the readings and reflections of many years". M'Crie is not so much writing in order to advance polemic as to state his case clearly. "On the subject in general, it is to be feared much ignorance and misapprehension prevail. The first and simplest of the Christian institutes has been involved in a labyrinth of metaphysical subtlety and theological discussion, the very aspect of which deters many from examining it." His intention is to provide a discussion "in a plain, popular, and practical manner, adapted to the comprehension of all". What is particularly noteworthy is the gracious manner in which he approaches the subject. "It is extremely difficult to speak on the point at all without offending cherished prejudices; and it is our special unhappiness in this question, that we are brought into collision with brethren whose personal piety and public zeal in the cause of Christ entitle them to the highest praise. But the interests of truth (and this seems eminently a part of " the present truth ") require that we should take up the question under this disadvantage; and it has been the author's intention, however he may have succeeded in carrying it out, to avoid all uncharitable invective and needless irritation".

He concludes his preface in the attitude of prayer using "one of the Prayers anciently used at the celebration of baptism in the French and Scottish Churches:— 'Hear us, Father of mercy, that so the Baptism which we dispense, according to thy institution, may produce its fruit and virtue, in such sort as thou hast declared to us in thy Gospel!'"

Is this not the spirit to approach this and all such similar controversies?

The Scriptural Duty of bearing public Testimony

John Willison writes the following in his A Fair and Impartial Testimony.

1. The servants of God, and especially ministers of the gospel, are frequently in Scripture called his Witnesses; in regard they are called to give testimony to his truths and ways, and to bear witness against what is prejudicial or contrary thereunto, Rev. xi. 3, 7. Luke xxiv. 48. John v. 33. and xv. 27. Acts i. 8. and xxii. 15, 18. and xxvi. 19. It is by such faithful witness hearing that we must hold fast the truths of God when ready to be plucked from us, and to contend for the faith which he hath delivered to his saints, Rev. iii. 11. Jude verse 3. And in this way we are to wrestle with and overcome truth’s adversaries, Rev. xii. 11. They overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony. The character which God gives his servants three times in the compass of a few verses should make very deep impression upon us, Isa. xliii. 10, 12. and xliv. 8. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord. And it is in that capacity he calls and requires us to confess Christ before men, to bear viwitness to Christ and to his truths, to stand fast is the faith, to quit ourselves like men, to be strong, to be steadfast, tobe zealous and valiant for the truth, to be faithful unto death.—To contend earnestly for the faith and set ourselves for the defence of the gospel.—To plead with our Mother; to keep the charge of the Lord, and the charge of his sanctuary; to keep that which is committed to our, trust; to be clean who bear the vessels of the Lord, and not to touch the unclean thing.—To save ourselves from an untoward generation: to keep our garments clean and unspotted from the world, to hate the work of them that turn aside, that it may not cleave to us; to keep ourselves pure, and not to be partakers of other mens sins; to flee from sin, and deliver every man his own soul; to abhor what is evil, to cleave unto the Lord and to that which is good; to keep ourselves from the accursed thing.—To be watchmen to the house of Israel, and give them warning from God; to cry aloud and not spare, to shew the house of Jacob their sins; to reprove the works of darkness; not to suffer sin upon our brother; to be pure from the blood of all men, and not to shun to declare all the counsel of God.—Now these multiplied Scripture texts and Divine precepts afford us clear and plain warrant to make an open appearance and declaration for our Lord Jesus Christ, and for his truths and ways when injured; and against the evils and corruptions of the times, especially when they are avowed and infectious, and like to infect more and more.

2. Writing and leaving a testimony behind us to true religion, and against error and corruption, is necessary and useful for the instruction, conviction, and confirmation both of the present and future generations, and a very proper mean for handing viidown God’s truths and institutions pure from age to age; which is a debt that one generation owes to another, as God declares in his word; Psal. lxxviii. 5, 6, 7. He established a testimony in, Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers that they should make them known to their children; that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their children: That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of Cod, but keep his commandments. Psal. cxlv. 4. One generation shall praise thy works to another and shall declare thy mighty acts. And according to Psal. cii. 18. God’s works of grace and mercy are to be written for the generations to come, that the people which are to be created may praise the Lord. And we are enjoined, Psal. xlviii. 13. to walk about Zion, to tell her towers, mark her bulwarks and palaces, viz. the institutions and ornaments of the gospel church, that we may shew them to the generation following. And we are appointed, Ezek. xliii. 11. to shew to the house of Israel the form and fashion of the house of God, with the ordinances and laws thereof, and to write it in their sight, that they may keep them and do them. All these do plainly demonstrate our Scripture warrant for leaving such written testimonies behind us.

3. Writing and emitting faithful testimonies for God and his ways, is necessary and seasonable especially in times of corruption and backsliding, even when true religion is in danger. In such times Christ doth kindly accept and reward our open confessing of him and his truths before men, Rev. ii. 2. Matth. x. 32. And, on the other hand, he severely threatens our conniving at error and impiety, and not bearing testimony against them when they abound, Rev. ii. 14, 15, 16. Now, is not the backsliding day in which we live a proper season for such open confessions and faithful testimonies, when errors of all kinds are tolerate, approven truths are run down, and manifold corruptions prevail, to the dishonour of God and our holy religion; and when applications to judicatories for redress are unsuccessful? Surely it must be in such a time as this, that God calls his servants and witnesses to rise up for him (by faithful testimonies) against the evil-doers, and stand up for him against the workers of iniquity, Psal. xciv. 16.

4. A written subscribed testimony seems necessary in obedience to the Ninth Commandment, for preserving and clearing the names and characters of honest ministers and elders in times of defection, and for vindicating them from the common charge of the corruptions and wrong steps of the societies whereof they are members. As they are often loaded unjustly with these evils, so their giving a subscribed testimony against them is a proper xway to wipe off aspersions from their names while they live, to prevent blackning of their memories when dead, and also to yield them much inward peace when dying. Wherefore in my humble opinion, the call seems to be pretty clear to them who desire to, keep their garments unspotted, and to hate the work of them that turn aside, that it may not cleave to them, and who would embalm their names to posterity as witnesses for God in an evil time, to declare their minds by joining in such a testimony as this, and thereby exoner their consciences with respect to the backsliding and defections under which they have been long groaning. And whatsoever their hands finds to do in this matter, it is fit they do it without loss of time, seeing their standing is so slippery every day upon the brink of the grave.

5. Emitting testimonies in time of defection hath been the approven practice of God’s worthies in former times. They judged their giving written testimonies against growing errors and corruptions to be the lifting up, a banner for truth, and the proper means to stop the current of defection, and to excite and plead with their Mother to use her best endeavours for that effect.—We have still extant such faithful testimonies given by sundry ministers in the years 1658 and 1659, when a toleration was granted by law to the sectaries and errors which then prevailed: and namely, that famous testimony drawn up against these errors, and to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this church, subscribed by Mr. Samuel Rutherford, Mr. James Wedderburn, Mr. James Guthrie, Mr. Alexander Moncrieff, Mr. Thomas Lundie, and many others.—Likewise a testimony against toleration by the presbytery of Edinburgh, xi5th October, 1659.—One by the ministers of Lancashire, 3d March, 1648.—One by Mr. George Gillespie, two days before his death.—One by the ministers of London, 14th December, 1647.—One by Mr. Rutherford on his death-bed, February, 1661.—One by, Dr. Horneck against stageplays, &c. And, lastly, what are all the dying speeches which our martyrs have left written behind them, but so many testimonies to the truths and ways of God, and against the errors and corruptions of their times? And these testimonies, however much despised by the world, God hath blessed as means for continuing truth and gospel purity among us to this day. And who knows but the Testimony now essayed in imitation of the foresaid worthies, may likewise be of use for preserving truth, and exciting reformation, when many of the present backsliding generation are laid in the dust? A new turn of affairs, and a general revival, may yet come; (The Lord himself hasten it!) Now it will be highly useful at such a time, for the generation to know something of the sentiments and practices of ancient wrestlers against corruption. Were there no testimonies of this kind, both the knowledge of truth, and the sense of duty and of sin in sundry cases, would be lost to the rising ages, towards whom we of the present age are indispensibly bound to act a kind and faithful part, viz. to give them just information.

Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom

The cost of the proposed papal visit to UK taxpayers is one thing (easily £100m once security is taken into account) - although by no means a small matter in the current climate. Why should the tax payer shell out so much on the head of a country that is so small it would scarcely cover the area of any parish or community council in the UK? There is another cost, however, which is political, moral and spiritual. It is a dangerous attack upon the heritage of the nation. A new book seeks to highlight this cost. It does so in an informed, rather than prejudiced, way by taking these matters back to the Scriptures for the examination of the claims of the papacy against the truth.

'For well over a thousand years there has been a succession of men claiming an astonishing position for themselves, both in religion and in the affairs of nations. When one dies, another takes his place. The latest in this extraordinary dynasty has been invited by the former Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, to visit Britain. Who is this man and why is his visit a danger to the United Kingdom?'

Published by Free Presbyterian Publications (Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland) at £5 (available from www.fpbookroom.org), this small paperback (108pp) highlights the serious issues surrounding the impending state visit of the pope to the United Kingdom. It outlines his absurd role as head of state, his objectionable career, especially in covering up the sexual abuse carried out by priests. Other essays focus on the Protestant nature of the UK constitution, show that the Pope is head of a false religion which denies and undermines the cardinal points of salvation and truth, refute the doctrine of Papal infallibility and show how the Scriptures foretell the emergence, character and demise of the papacy.

The volume concludes with the reprint of an essay by RL Dabney on the Attractions of Popery. Dabney has this to say: "The popish system of ritual and doctrine was a gradual growth, which, modifying true Christianity, first perverted and then extinguished it. Its destructive power has resulted from this: that it has not been the invention of any one cunning and hostile mind, but a gradual growth, modified by hundreds or thousands of its cultivators, who were the most acute, learned, selfish, and anti-Christian spirits of their generations, perpetually retouched and adapted to every weakness and every attribute of depraved human nature, until it became the most skillful and pernicious system of error which the world has ever known. As it has adjusted itself to every superstition, every sense of guilt, every foible and craving of the depraved human heart, so it has travestied with consummate skill every active principle of the gospel. It is doubtless the ne plus ultra of religious delusion, the final and highest result of perverted human faculty guided by the sagacity of the great enemy".

A review is available at www.middletome.com from which the above image has been borrowed.

'behind the age'?

"These are held up as superstitious who claim a hearing for God when, on other days than Sabbath, He calls men away from the vanities of the world to consider things unseen and eternal. Those who attempt to fence the table of the Lord are represented as mystical and straight-laced and, because conservative of what is scriptural, they are said to be 'behind the age'. . . . To be behind an age that is drifting away from truth and ungodliness is the only safe, the only dutiful, position." (John Kennedy, The Present Cast and Tendency of Religious Thought and Feeling in Scotland,

the most beautiful thing under heaven

The true visible church, where God's ordinances are set up as he hath appointed, where his word is purely preached, is the most beautiful thing under heaven, and there is God's glory set forth and manifested more clearly than in all the Lord's handiwork beside in heaven or earth.
David Dickson

a prisoner of God's kind providence

The online publication of old copies of the Free Presbyterian Magazine (beginning 1906) is a great provision. The following comes from a letter written by a Colin Mackenzie 4 South Erradale, Gairloch, who died in 1905. It is said of him that "It was apparent to those who knew him intimately that his trouble proved a spiritual blessing to him. He once mentioned with much solemnity and pathos that he had often, day and night, suffered from such excruciating pains that he was afraid he would be deprived of his reason, yet that that was but a trifle compared to the smallest part of a grain of the wrath of God on the conscience for a single moment. His very countenance bespoke the reality of what he said".

Though I am a prisoner of God's kind providence, yet I praise His thrice holy name that my bitter cup is mixed with His loving kindness; and He not only bestows upon me of His liberal
bounty, but in a wonderful way permits me to enjoy a fair share of the good things of this life.
A few weeks ago I was very much depressed and low in spirit, but now my hope seems to have revived a bit, and my confidence in God renewed. Yet I must confess I make little, if any,
progress on the way to Zion. I find my old enemy - the carnal mind - is still alive, and at times makes me cry out in despair of ever reaching that city of refuge. Oh, that my Redeemer would suffer me to crawl at His feet, and eat of the crumbs that fall off His table; and as a poor worm would find refuge under a stone, so would my:soul find a place of refuge under His wings. Then I would have confidence that He would not crush me, because He will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax. Pardon me for talking, in my own illiterate way, of things too wonderful for me, of which I know so little. It would become me best to repent not only of my old sins, but of every-day thought, word, and deed, and come again and again to be washed in the fountain open for sin and uncleanness.

Clothing ourselves and sanctifying the Lord's Day

John Willison - A Treatise Concerning the Sanctification of, and Meditations on, the Lord's Day

When you are up, hasten to put on your clothes, and spend as little time this day in dressing yourself as possible, that you may have time for secret duties, and retired converse with God. But, since the body must be clothed this day, let your thoughts be well employed in the time you are doing it: Think on sin, that was the cause of your soul's nakedness, and of your body's need of apparel. Remember from whom you have your clothes, to cover, keep warm, and adorn your bodies: even from God, it is his wool and his flax; therefore give thanks to him for your raiment, as well as your food. And though your clothes be not so fine as you would wish, yet mind, "that these of whom the world was not worthy, wandered about in sheeps skins and goats skins." And, if you be not so outwardly splendid as others, seek that decking which will "make you all glorious within." When others are following vain fashions seek ye to be "covered with the robes of Christ s righteousness." And, since you are this day to make a solemn appearance before God your heavenly Father, you must be sure, like Jacob, to come in the garments of your elder Brother, otherwise you cannot expect your Father's blessing. Put no confidence in your own righteousness; for it is no better than rags, or a garment full of holes, the least whereof is sufficient to let in the curse of God upon you. Therefore "put on the Lord Jesus," if you would this day appear before God, and be accepted of him. Take care also, that your bodies this day be gravely and decently appareled, and beware of pride and vanity this way, if ye would have God to own you; the adorning which he recommends, is not that "of plaiting the hair, wearing of gold, and putting on of apparel, but the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price," 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.

Most people on the Sabbath are concerned to adorn their bodies with their best clothes; but, alas ! who among you is careful to attire his soul as he ought on this day, when he is going
to meet the blessed Redeemer of souls, the King of glory?

Vanity and gaudiness of apparel is opposite to the sanctification of the Sabbath. Some dress up themselves this day in such vain attire, and indecent fashions, as tend to draw the eyes of others to gaze upon them, and so their hearts to wander from God and his worship. Think what guilt you hereby draw upon yourselves, of the sins of others as well as your own. The practices of some heathens may put many professed Christians among us to the blush. Valerius Maximus tells of a heathen young man, named Sparina, who was exceeding beautiful ; but observing that many fixed their eyes on him, and fearing the consequences of it, he disfigured his face, lest his beauty should prove a snare to others. May not this heathen condemn such, who are so far from disfiguring themselves lest they should prove a temptation to others, that they disfigure their faces by painting and patching, to seem more beautiful than God has made them, without fearing
whatever the consequences of it may prove. Is not this a shewing a dislike of God s workmanship, and a desire to mend it? Jezebel was infamous for this art, and no sober woman should desire to follow her fashion. A Christian should be so far from being proud or vain of his apparel, that the sight of his garments should humble him, and keep him in mind how he came to need them: Was it not sin that stript man of his glory, covered him with shame, and put him to seek clothes for to hide it ? Would it not be distraction in a malefactor to pride himself in a stigma which he had got for a foul crime? Consider also the garments you are proud of, what they are: The beasts have the same naturally to cover them, and will you be proud of a beast s covering? It was the saying of a heathen to a vain gallant, "Why art thou proud of that which a sheep wore before thee?" Or, what though they be finer than wool? yet their original is no better, but rather worse: What are velvets, silks, and satins, but the excrements of a vile worm? and is that a matter to be vain of? Remember, that ere long God will cause thee to wear another suit thou wilt have small reason to be proud of ; he will even clothe thee with worms and putrefaction. May not the thoughts hereof keep you humble, and teach you to come to the church gravely and decently appareled? especially since you come into the presence of that God who resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Why "in so far as" goes too far and not far enough

There are two Latin words that are essential when defining how a confession. The first is "quia" (Latin for "because") the second is "quatenus" (Latin for "insofar as"). Quia subscription (a Confession is adhered to because it fully agrees with Scripture is an entirely accurate summary of the Scriptures) implies that the subscriber believes that there is no contradiction between the Confession and the Scriptures. Quatenus subscription (the Confession is adhered to insofar as it agrees with the Scriptures) implies that the subscriber leaves room for the possibility that there might be a contradiction of the Scriptures in the Confession, implies suspicion that there are areas identified by the subscriber as unfaithful to Scripture and that on these points the subscriber must abandon the Confession and adhere only to the Scriptures. "Quia" subscription does not make the Confession inerrant it simply acknowledges that it is an accurate summary of Scripture. Samuel Rutherford said that a Confession is rather like a translation of the Bible into a language. The content is the same as the original but it does not have the exact verbal inspired, infallible authority of the original. The precise wording of a Confession is not infallible but the truth it contains is.

The historic view of the Reformed (and Lutheran) Churches has been "quia" subscription. This has, however, been consistently attacked by those who oppose the truth. The orthodox at the Synod of Dort maintained quia subscription while the Remonstrants (Arminians) supported "in so far as" (quatenus). Rather than plead for an overthrow of the Confessional standard and a new standard to be prepared from scratch, they plead for a loose subscription to the Confession that will allow them room to deny whatever they wish both now and in the future. If, after subscription, someone comes to the view that there is something in the Confession that they cannot agree to as biblical then they must resign their office. "In so far as" subscription subverts the very purpose of subscription because subscription is meant to make it absolutely clear what a Church and its office-bearers confess and believe. To say that one subscribes 'quatenus' (in so far as) is to say that one does not really subscribe to anything at all. It could mean that nothing is seen as scriptural in the document and therfore nothing subscribed and confessed. We must agree with the Lutheran C.F.W. Walther who said that Christians could subscribe even the Mohammedans’ Koran “insofar as” it agrees with the Word of God. A quatenus subscription allows the individual to maintain the appearance of agreement in doctrine while also reserving the right to disagree wherever it may suit him. A Confession should be made not in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God, but because (quia) it agrees fully with the word of God, the unchanging standard.

Those who defend "in so far as" subscription try to argue that the danger of quia subscription is that it seems to place the Confession above Scripture. It is evident from quia subscription itself that Scripture is the norm and the sole authority, the Confession only derives its authority "because" it adheres to Scripture. Scripture itself demands confession of its truth, the deposit entrusted to the Church which is "the pillar and ground of truth" “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. Acts 20:27 “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” 1 Tim 1:13 "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also".

Others try to say that "in so far as" really means the same as "according to the Scriptures" and it really has an orthodox sense. There is an obvious difference between “according to the Word of God” and “in so far as…consistent with the Holy Scriptures”. “According” means 'in full harmony, agreement, conformity and accord with' while “in so far as” bears the sense of ‘to the extent that’ and that what is referred to is not always the case or always possible. A mathematical way of expressing this difference would be that according is like = (equals/direct equivalent whereas in so far as is like >= (less than or equal to). We can use phrases such as "agreeable to the Word of God" "founded on God's Word" etc. but these never have the same in meaning as "in so far as". They are entirely different semantically. One expressing full harmony, agreement and accordance and the other expressing the conviction or at least possibility that the documents fall short of full consistency with Scripture.

Dutch example

The danger of the "in so far as" wording is best illustrated by the Dutch alteration of 1816. Until this point subscription was total but then there was a change to "we accept in good faith and heartily believe the doctrine, which according to God's holy word, is contained in the accepted forms of unity of the Netherlands reformed church". The difficulty with this change is that while it is basically orthodox and it was received by the orthodox in good faith that it was so- some were apt to take the phrase "which according to God's holy word" to mean that the doctrine was qualified and modified by their personal interpretation of the Scriptures. Rev. Molenaar, a contemporary wrote "Everyone who carefully considers this declaration, will see clearly that it does not say, that the Articles of our Church are according to God's Word, but with reservation, that one believes that doctrine which according to God's Word, is contained in the Articles of our Church. The subscription is therefore not made, because the articles are recognised as agreeable with God's word, but in so far as they are agreeable with God's word. Such a subscription can be made by every Christian faction, the papists can subscribe it, yes even the Jews can do it. If they had used the words in so far as, then every person would have noticed it and every one would have been on their guard" (Documenta Reformatoria Vol 2 p.114 letter of Rev. Molenaar in 1827).

'This, as well as others of the Protestant Churches on the Continent, once sound in the faith, may be reckoned on the side of Rationalism and Socinianism. This was effected not by any change in the standards, but by an alteration in the formula. The Dutch Reformed Church, by the alteration of a single word in the formula, completely altered the standard. The office bearers formerly adhered to the Confession because (quia) it was in accordance with the Word of God; now the formula runs, in so far as (quatenus) it is in accordance with the Word of God. By such a change their Confession became a totally different standard to them. 'The Government of the Kingdom of Christ, Part III. by James Moir Porteous chap VII.

Scottish Examples
Scottish Presbyterian history affords similar examples of the dangerous intrusion of quatenus subscription. In 1789 the Relief Church of Scotland Synod objected to the views of Rev. James Smith, Dunfermline. He had an erroneous view of the atonement but also belived that "systems of theology and creeds were too highly revered". Smith further declared that he was willing to subscribe the WCF only "in so far as it agreed with Scripture". The Synod opposed this as an obvious loophole for heretics to find refuge. They proceeded to pass the following resolution:
"That the minister who presides over the work of ordination or admission of any minister (not formerly ordained by any of the Presbyteries subject to the Synod) shall, in the Questions to be put to the person to be ordained or thus admitted, keep precisely to the Act of Assembly relative to that affair, and in particular shall not ask "Do you agree to the Confession of Faith in so far as it is agreeable to the Word of God", but put the Question in the identical words enjoined by the Assembly"

Similar examples can be found in the Victorian apostasising Free Church of Scotland. Take an instance at a service of ordination at Newton-on-Ayr in 1885. Some of the elders ‘although accepting the Confession of Faith substantially, stated privately that they accepted it (as it was accepted in the U.P. Church) only in so far as it agreed with the Word of God’ (Signal, May 1885, pp.129-32). The United Presbyterian questions at ordination of course required an acknowledgement of the WCF as "an exhibition of the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture".

In the Established Church of Scotland James Stuart, author of "The Principles of Christianity", when brought before the Presbytery of Edinburgh in January 1889 is reported as saying: “He could not see how the subordinate standard and the ultimate standard were on an equality. He regarded the sub-ordinate one as valid only in so far as it was based on the ultimate one.”

Moving on a century from Stuart we come to the Deed of Separation for the Associated Presbyterian Churches. This Deed states that the documents said to form their constitution, including the WCF are accepted only "insofar as each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy Scripture". This is a patent qualification and modifying clause pemitting individuals a declaratory Act to decide how far or to what extent each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy Scripture. On this basis any minister in the country could subscribe the subordinate standards - it opens things up wider than the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892. An "in so far as" clause would ratifies any sort of cherrypicking at the Confession that the individual in their subjective judgement prefers. It is not only inconsistent with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Resolution on Creed Subscription but also the declaration in the formula to be subscribed by Probationers, Ministers, Elders and Deacons "that I 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". Either the whole of the standards are biblical or the Church should determine which parts are not and eliminate them accordingly.

Given the history of the words, the APC "in so far as" clause is in the camp of the loosest confessional subscription and not total subscription. Any 21st century equivalent of Rev. James Smith, Dunfermline in the APC can say to himself, ”I want to subscribe to the Confession only in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. I look at the vows and they don't seem to allow for this but when I look at the Church's constitution I see that it explicitly receives the WCF only in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. I think to myself – the Church is making generous allowance for me and using the words I would use myself”. Thus he proceeds to subscribe in good faith. He does not need to declare it publicly or make any reference to any scruples he has with the Confession.

Note that he does not need to express anything publicly because he has a Declaratory Act in the Constitution of the Church which he may avail of. In the case of the Free Church Declaratory Act, men could appeal to the Act mentally in subscribing the constitution but did not need to make any public declaration of this. Noone was allowed to record the fact that they were not appealing to the Declaratory Act. Any APC ordinand or minister need only to make mental appeal to the “in so far as” clause. This would be dishonesty on the part of the individual but the Church has provided an opportunity that was not there before. The only way to prevent this from happening would be to return to the previous wording of full commitment to the doctrinal constitution as entirely Scriptural.

One tends to act carefully in preparing constitutional documents and select words carefully. For instance, the 1893 Deed of Separation is based upon the 1843 documents. The APC founders have been careful enough in the Deed of Separation of 1989 to specify "each and every one" of the documents. The question is, where was the need to depart from the existing wording of the constitution and adopt the "in so far as" clause? There has been enough controversy over such matters in the presbyterian history of Scotland that anyone with some degree of acquaintance with that would recognise the danger of revision.

When a Church says that it receives the subordinate standards "in so far as each and every one of the documents is consistent with Holy Scripture", it is not just providing a potential refuge for heretics but altering its own relation to its fixed doctrinal constitution. It is not saying what the individual is at liberty to do - it is saying how the Church receives the subordinate standards. It cannot change the Confession as agreed in 1647 but it can alter its relationship to it (as was done by the Free Church in 1892) - but it then becomes a different Church with a different constitution. The APC cannot claim to be constitutionally or morally the true Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

There is all the difference in the world between saying that I "sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith...to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith" and saying that I agree with them only "in so far as" or to the extent that they are consistent with the Scriptures. In the one I am saying that there is nothing inconsistent with the Scriptures it is simply Scriptural truth gathered together, in the other I would be saying that I agree with them but there may be aspects that I do not consider to be consistent with Scripture or will not in the future consider to be consistent with Scripture and therefore I acknowledge only the parts that I consider to be consistent with Scripture.

But the APC also stands in the position of not making that full subscription itself and therefore backsliding from a full unequivocal profession of that body of truth in the WCF. It is the Church's duty to make its confession boldly and clearly and not to give an uncertain sound. It must be made clear that the Church holds to these documents because they do agree with Scripture entirely. To say that these are received only to the extent that they are consistent with Scripture is to cast a shadow on what is a true and faithful exposition of the Word of God. The APC founders in preparing this wording failed to maintain their vows in relation to the Confession which are to "firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain and defend the same".

When one approaches this issue from an historical perspective it is clear that an “in so far as etc.” clause for a Church's constitution is worse than unwise it is suicidal.

Heaven on Earth

Heaven on earth was what was promised to Adam in the beginning but which he forfeited. Often the phrase heaven on earth is associated with establishing a utopian society or discovering a paradise but this is a very debased sense of the words when we consider them spiritually. There are various ways in which the phrase "Heaven on earth" has been used in an orthodox way. We might say that heaven on earth relates to the Christian life in a number of ways but chiefly three; Doctrine, duty and experience.

Doctrine
Martin Luther wrote that "doctrine is heaven". "I often advise, doctrine must be carefully distinguished from life. Doctrine is heaven; life is earth...Therefore there is no similarity at
all between doctrine and life. One point of doctrine is worth more than heaven and earth. This is why we cannot bear to have it violated". Doctrine is the mind of God unfolded and the eternal truth of heaven brought down to us. Zacharias Ursinus showed the connection between doctrine and comfort, particularly in the Heidelberg Catechism. Christ is the focus of all doctrine and the focus of heaven. Heaven is doctrine realised.

Duty
Many have found heaven on earth in serving God and doing His will and thereby glorifying Him. The Covenanter Donald Cargill believed that he would get a heaven here on earth in glorifying Christ. "God knows," said John Livingstone, "that I would rather serve God on earth, and then endure the torments of the lost, than live a life of sin on earth, and then have for ever the bliss of the ransomed." That is a testimony that it is not easy to attain to. Samuel Rutherford
described his own restoration from exile to service and the deliverance of the Church as "my second created heaven on earth". He "has turned my apprehended fears into joys, and great deliverance to His church, whereof I have my share and part", he said. Some of the puritans found it to be the case even in practical areas of obedience to God's revealed will. Richard Steele wrote that "A godly marriage is a bit of heaven on earth."

A.W. Pink makes Humble Heart to say "I cannot boast of my knowledge of God in Christ, yet by Divine grace this I may say: that I desire no other Heaven on earth than to know and to do God’s will, and be assured that I have His approval."

Experience
This brings us to experience, with which perhaps we most associate heaven on earth. The following anecdote perhaps defines much of what we think of as experiencing heaven on earth. "About the year 1785 the people of God had a remarkable blessing at a communion at Kilearnan [Ross-shire] and were filled to overflowing with the presence of God on the Sabbath. When the
congregation was dispersing a godly young man said to an aged woman a mother in Israel:-"Oh, would it not be well if what we now feel were to continue with us till we reached home". "Oh, Donald," she said, "it would be well if what we now feel were continued with us till we reached
the opposite bank of yonder stream, this is heaven on earth."


Thomas Brooks wrote of assurance as Heaven on Earth. Richard Sibbes writes helpfully on this: "Therefore let us labour first for interest in Christ's righteousness, and then for the righteousness of an holy life; for a conscience to justify us, that we have no purpose to live in any sin ; and a not accusing conscience will be a justifying conscience. What a blessed condition shall we be in, to be in Christ, and to know that we are so! the heaven on earth of
such a man as is in that condition! For which way soever he looks, he finds matter of comfort". Whether backwards into his own life of obedience or forward to heaven.

Christopher Love's wife wrote of him "He lived too much in heaven to live too long out of heaven; and sure I am that he lived a life of heaven on earth. His fellowship was with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." This is similar to what was said of Richard Sibbes; that heaven was in him before he was in heaven.

Richard Sibbes is perhaps the best writer on this subject, not surprisingly. He believes that heaven is an enlarging of our best experience here and an enlarging of our best parts to experience more of Christ. "Oh! beloved, what a blessed time will that be when this large heart of ours shall have that that will fill it; when the best parts of us, our understanding, will, and affections, shall be carried to that which is better and larger than itself, and shall be, as it were, swallowed up in the fulness of God...when a gracious heart expresseth itself, being full of joy, it expresscth itself in thanks and praises, in stirring up of others...Doth God
perform any promise, and so give cause of joy? let him sing. There is action for every affection, affection for every condition. And this may stir us up to begin the employment in heaven on earth here".

The employment of heaven is joy and praise. "Let us begin the employment of heaven beforehand.
For why doth God discover to us that he will bring us to glory? why doth he discover it to our faith, that excellent state? That we might begin heaven on earth, as much as might be. And how shall we do that? By the emploj'ment of heaven. What is that? ' Holy, holy, holy, Lord God
of hosts,' Rev. 4:8. There is nothing but magnifying and glorifying of God. There shall be no need of prayer. There are praises alway; and so much as we are in the praises of God, and glorifying of God for his mercy and love in Christ, so much we are in heaven before our time.
They that be in heaven are praising God, and so be they much in praising of God here. They that
be in heaven love to see the face of God, they joy in it. And they that be heavenly-minded here joy in the presence of God, in the word, the sacraments, and his children. If they be ascended in any degree and measure, this they will do. And then they will joy in communion with God all they can, as they do in heaven. You have some carnal dispositions that are never themselves but in carnal company like themselves. If ever we mean to be in heaven, we must joy in heaven on earth; that is, in them that be heavenly in their dispositions. If we cannot endure them here, how shall we ever live with them in heaven?"

We must be endeavouring after holiness without which no man shall see the Lord and seeking to have our affections set upon things above. Heaven on Earth is communion with Christ and the experience of His love. John Kennedy of Dingwall believed that "those who are heirs of heaven seek communion with Christ. They seek this now. This is their foretaste of heaven on earth, and this [they will have] in perfection in heaven at last.”

We ought to be encouraged that if we have any of this in any measure, there is heaven on earth in our experience, however, weakly we may perceive and recognise it.

Richard Capel and the Special Providential Preservation of Scripture

Richard Capel (1586-1656) was a significant and very learned writer who has been called a "living library." This was first said of him in the memoir written by his friend Valentine Marshall. Marshall wrote that Capel ‘was a very living Library, a full store-house of all kinde of good Literature no lesse than a little University’ (Marshall, ‘To the reader’). Samuel Clarke in Lives of Thirty-Two English Divines, p. 311 also wrote:

He [Richard Capel] was a living library, a full storehouse of all good literature, a judicious preacher, and a sound orthodox divine.

Capel was also a Fellow of Magdalen College, where he tutored the poet George Herbert and William Pemble (whose works Capel later edited) amongst others. Richard Sibbes commended him in a preface to the book of as 'this godly Minister (my Christian friend) … [who] besides faithfulnesse, and fruitfulnesse in his ministry, hath beene a good proficient in the schoole of temptation himself’. When the sabbath-breaking Book of Sports was reissued in 1633 by Charles I, Capel declined to read it in his church and, voluntarily resigning his rectory, obtained from the bishop of Gloucester a licence to practise medicine. He settled at Pitchcombe, near Stroud. He is frequently mentioned as a Westminster Divine which is certainly true in the sense that he was nominated to the Westminster Assembly although there has been debate as to whether he ever took up his seat.

Richard Capel has some notable writings in relation to Scripture and its translation and special providential preservation. Capel's views point to the puritan consensus which produced with complete unanimity the chapter on the Holy Scriptures in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Capel's attitude to Scripture is best illustrated by the following quotation. "As faith worketh by love unto God, so it worketh by love unto his word. Love me, love my word: love a king, love his laws. So it did on David; so it should do on us: "O how love I thy law!" saith David. "O how love I thy law!" should every one of us say; not only because it is a good law, but chiefly because it is God's law".

Capel provides an important defence of the translation of Scripture into the languages of the world and states: “Translations are commanded by God, as Ordinance and constitution of Heaven itself”. Capel agrees with the Westminster Confession's ultimate appeal to the original languages of Scripture, the Confession states that "the Church is finally to appeal unto them" the original language texts preserved by Special providence. Capel points out that we do not believe that translations themselves are incapable of error so as to be our final appeal. "The translators and transcribers might err, being not...indued with that infallible spirit in translating, or transcribing. The Scriptures in their translated copies are not free from all possible corruptions."

Capel also points out that while we do not have the original autographs of the pen-men of Scripture and cannot we assert that every copyist was miraculously preserved from error, we should not therefore conclude that we cannot be certain of the true text. He alludes to a consensus then current, expressed in the Westminster Confession, that "The Old Testament in Hebrew...and the New Testament in Greek...being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical". Capel writes:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

It is not about holding up one particular manuscript as uncorrupt but rather the text as witnessed to by the majority of manuscripts. "To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this privilege since the first autographs were in being.” He asserts that we it is not just a matter of being able to say that "all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Original Copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire".

There is a danger in using the fact of some errors in manuscripts and the loss of the original manuscripts to seek to deny special providential preservation. Capel rejects such claims as "terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme and quite to fling off the bridle, which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.” This is why this is such an important doctrine because the effects of not believing it

The publication of Capel's writing on this subject coincides with the year of publication for John Owen's work on providential preservation also. It is difficult to know whether Owen benefited from Capel's work but they certainly concurred. Owen writes in "Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures; With an answer to that inquiry How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God": "The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority".

Owen agrees with Capel that the idea that Scripture is no more preserved by special providence than any other book leads to atheism, because it overthrows the supernatural character of the Scriptures. "It can, then, with no colour of probability be asserted … that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands". On the critical view: "There is nothing left unto men but to choose whether they will be Papists or Atheists". When supernatural revelation is undermined in these ways "we shall quickly see what banks are cut, to let in a flood of atheism upon the face of the earth". This has been proved not only in the experience of critics who have become atheists, but in history. Owen was right to view the emergence of biblical criticism with the greatest alarm because it has led to the Englightenment rejection of the supernatural character of the Scriptures with historical criticism, liberal theology and atheism in various forms.

1611 and 2011

Has any other Bible version been the subject of an early day motion in the House of Commons? And a debate(9 Dec 2009 : Column 97WH)? Or the subject of a BBC documentary?

See here for a secular national initiative to mark the anniversary of the AV but here for a more appropriate series of events.

What we must hold fast

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

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

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

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

The National Debt and our debt of sin

As fears rage over the national deficit in Greece (here)and its implications in other countries not least Britain - you may benefit from reading an article here that considers not only the National Debt but the reality of our debt of sin of which we ought to be reminded.

Voting and the Bible

Bigger turnouts. Tactical voting. Evidence-based voting.
By now you will have voted, spoilt your ballot paper or not voted.

The Christian Institute produced a video encouraging Christians to vote with the question "How should Christians think biblically when considering ‘how’ or even ‘whether’ to vote?" The video was entitled "Voting and the Bible in 210 seconds". Their election briefing is invaluable but I'm not sure about the video. It refers to lots of bible passages but almost none directly relevant to voting. They are about praying for governments instead. The link above also links to a Southern Baptist document "Why Should Christians Vote?". This document does not do much better. One can be salt and light in society without casting a secret vote. It seems as if they are saying that these are the best passages it is possible to find in the bible with the closest fit with the issue.

The Bible does not use the words vote or voting. There is, however, a lot about government and national duty. Romans 13:1-14 doesn't really prescribe voting as a duty or active citizenship, more a subjection to the just authority of governments. One can render these duties unto Caesar without voting. It's hard to think that if Christians had the vote at this time they would have voted for the persecuting regime of Nero.

It would be an entire mistake to think that the Bible has nothing to say about choosing rulers simply because it does not refer to ballot by universal suffrage. It speaks frequently about the choice of rulers by a people and nation. Part of the difficulty is that people don't want to go to the Old Testament and find it. Deut 1:13 says "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you". Exodus 18:21 "thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens". We also read "he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God"(2 Sam. 23:3). Psalm 82 further describes the duties of rulers. The qualifications for a ruler could not be clearer and even if we allow for the fact of a changed situation from the nation-state of Israel as constituted by the Mosaic covenant, there are definite principles of general equity to apply here. Why do we have covetous and unjust rulers? Because they are neither men of truth nor men that fear God. In other words we cannot separate the Bible's mandate for voting from the Bible's requirements as to whom we can give a mandate for government.

Democracy means that power is invested in the people and that they loan out that power or delegate it to rulers. They give them the authority to implement their manifesto. That includes everything that they disagree with as well as everything they can support. It includes everything that they have said that they will leave untouched as well as all their explicit commitments.

If a party reneges on their manifesto commitments I can justly complain. If, however, they do what they have committed to and leave untouched that which they have left unaddressed, how can I complain? It goes further than this, however, because if I have given them the power to do that which is evil or to ignore existing evils they are doing that in my name and authority. I have become partaker in other men's sins. I have become involved in national sins. I can no longer point the finger at those who commit such things as Scripture condemns or at the government which fails to restrain them because I have a critical role in ensuring that this state of affairs is maintained (Exodus 23:2).

The default position of many Christians appears to be that of the tactical vote. Tactical voting has been described recently as voting with your head and not your heart. Choosing the best of the worst because you want to prevent those who would be worse from getting into power. Laying aside one's principles to vote for someone that you would not usually vote for and do not agree with entirely. This may work well in the expediency that discounts truth but the Christian is under an absolute duty not to do evil that good may come.

The duty of nations as nations and the duty of their governments is abundantly clear in Psalm 2. Are we giving power to those who are fighting against Christ as well as his law? In voting I am entering into a moral contract with the party voted for. It is entirely disallowed and condemned in Scripture that we should make a covenant of unity (as opposed to a peace treaty) with the enemies of God and his laws in this way (2 Chron. 16.1-10; 2 Kings 16.7,10; 2 Chron. 28.16-23; 2 Chron. 18.3; 2 Chron. 19.2; 2 Chron. 20.35). 2 Chron. 19:2, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?" What happens in voting is that we help politicians to do evil, but not to do good: while they help us do evil, and hinder us from doing good. Isaiah 8:12, 13: 'Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread'. Will we not be joined to them in the temporal judgement that they receive if we are joined with them in this moral contract (Is. 13:15)? We cannot have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness in this but rather reprove them.

To give a position of honour to a rejecter of God's law is not only not seemly (Prov. 26:1), it is like putting a dangerous weapon into their hand (Prov. 26:6&8) with which they can only injure or kill. Such rulers may be set up by "not by me" says the Lord (Hosea 8:4 and Ps. 94:20). They may be valid rulers but not lawful. We are not promoting Christian political parties as such but we are promoting a careful examination of conscience as well as policies and manifestos. Let us hope that some Christians across the country have been able to vote for candidates that are fit as well as willing to promote God's law. We fear that this will not have been universally the case, however. It is not just hung parliaments that create unholy alliances.

James Begg on the Scottish Reformation

Next to the advent of our blessed Saviour, the Reformation from Popery is the most remarkable and glorious event recorded in modern history. The momentous consequences which have resulted from it to unnumbered multitudes can only be read in the annals of eternity.

Yet it is singular that this great event in Providence, to which Scotland owes so much, should never till now have received anything like a formal national acknowledgment. In 1660, when the first hundred years of the Reformation had passed away, no notice was taken of that event, the country being involved in a virtual revolution by the restoration of Charles II. In 1760, when
another eventful hundred years had finished their course, Scotland was sunk in profound torpor under the ecclesiastical dominion of men who have never at any period indicated much sympathy with the spirit of John Knox. Now, however, that 1860 has come, that a new spirit has breathed through the land, and that Rome is making determined efforts to regain her former ascendancy in Scotland, it is matter of earnest thankfulness to God that in a variety of ways the Reformation has been, and is likely to be, worthily commemorated, and the kingdom stirred up on the subject of its dangers and duties to its utmost depths.

[In 2010 the anniversary is given very little notice]

The apathy of the people of Scotland, so far as it exists on the subject of Romanism, is mainly to be traced to the want of zeal on the part of many ministers; and it is pretty evident that were the Reformation to be achieved now, some of them would not be found in the van of the
struggle. " If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, how wouldst thou contend with horses; and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they have wearied thee, what wouldst thou do in the dwellings of Jordan?"

We shall prove ourselves most unworthy descendants of the great Reformers and of God's great
mercies, if we do not seek by every means to stay the plague of evil. Let us especially pray that God himself, with whom is the residue of the Spirit, and who has been so gracious to
our land in ages past, making it the source of unnumbered blessings to the world, may not hide His face from us now, notwithstanding our great unworthiness, but may bring back our captivity like the streams of the south, cause us to see good according to the days in which we have been afflicted, and the number of the months in which we have seen evil, and make our latter end to be more glorious than the beginning. "Return, Lord, for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine
inheritance."

The principles of the Scottish Reformation

The Reformation in Scotland may be briefly characterised as the development of three great principles—
1st, The supreme authority of the Word of God in all matters pertaining to religion;
2d, The sole sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head and King of the Church—understanding by the term Church, the company of believers comprising both ministers and people;
3d, The official equality of all ordained ministers.

From these primary principles flow others, secondary in position, but essentially necessary—
1st, The independent spiritual jurisdiction of the Church as a necessary consequence of the two first principles, and that the Church may obey Christ freely and fully according to the revelation of his mind in the Sacred Scriptures;
2d, The rights and privileges of the Christian people regarded as believers, and thereby entitled to enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free —this also follows from the two first;
3d, Presbyterian Church government, as necessarily arising out of the first three principles, and opposed both to Prelacy and Congregationalism ;
4th, The education of the people as a part of the Church system, and therefore based upon and thoroughly pervaded by the principles of sacred and revealed truth.

Authoritative Exposition of the principles of the Free Church of Scotland, 1845

The greatest responsibility you have: the greatest privilege you could have

There are many questions in the world. The greatest of all questions that could be addressed to you is that which the Lord Jesus Christ addressed to Peter. "Lovest thou me?" This is not just a question asked by the greatest person about himself. It is the greatest question it is possible to ask about the greatest person. It is the greatest commandment. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment' (Mark 12:30). All our moral responsibility, the whole law hangs upon it.

This great commandment is in the gospel: 'Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him' (Psalm 2:12). It is the test of all our religious duty - without love to Christ, all is lost and nothing. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and knowledge, Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor; and Though I give my body to be burnt, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing." (1 Cor 13:1ff). It profiteth me nothing. As with a sum of money the zeros are important but without the whole number they are of no value no matter how many there may be. So with the love of Christ this is what gives value to anything that we do. This is a great question to ask of faith - is it working through love to Christ? Love and faith are joined together because they centre upon the same object, the Lord Jesus Christ. 'Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory' (1 Pet 1:8). The Pharisees had not the love of God in them (Jn 5:42) - this was the great charge against them - they would not come to Christ which was the great evidence of not having love toward God. This will be the great question on the day of judgement. "Lovest thou me more than these?" Our thoughts, words, actions will be sifted for love to Christ. This is laid upon us as vital to our eternal destiny, 'if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha' (1 Cor 16:22). Anathema means accursed, Maranatha means the Lord comes. At the Lord's coming he shall judge and shall pronounce either the curse or blessing. How solemn to be pronounced accursed at the coming of the Lord. He shall say 'Depart from me, I never knew you'. You never loved me and I never knew you in that way. This is the great distinguishing mark of regeneration, circumcision of heart must produce love to Christ (Deut 30:6). It is the test of whether or not we are in right relationship with God. Those that love Christ in sincerity have a primary mark of grace. They are the truly regenerate (Deuteronomy 30:6).

It is also the highest privilege that there is. To love Christ. He is the greatest object for our affections. No-one higher may be loved in heaven or upon earth (Ps 73:25). The psalmist's question, 'Whom have I in the heavens high, but thee O Lord alone?' is not just a personal question but a question that is unversally true. 'And in the earth whom I desire, besides thee, there is none'. All the things that we may desire are not to be compared to him. One of the old writers says that an individual's worth is to be measured according to the object of their affections and satisfaction. Christ is an infinite person and therefore those that make him the object of their affections and satisfaction have an infinite worth attaching to them. He is the only object of true and ultimate affection and satisfaction and to seek this elsewhere is idolatry. If we are placing our chief affections elsewhere, this is upon comparatively worthless objects which makes us in turn worthless. The more we love Christ the more we become like him. Christ is not only infinite but eternal. This love is therefore everlasting - it is the queen of all graces because it outshines them and outlasts them. It brings all other graces in its train. 'Charity edifieth'. It brings joy unspeakable and quickens obedience. It is a heavenly affection that puts heaven in us before we are in heaven. Heaven is a world of love. Love to Christ is also the highest of privileges that brings all other privileges in its train. Those that love God are remembered by him in a special way and looked upon in a special way. They are preserved. That God should love us is beyond our grasp. That God should condescend to accept our love is something more - an even more mysterious thing. It is a condescension shining with glorious, matchless grace. There can be no greater privilege. 'My beloved is mine and I am his' is the very heights of redemptive privilege. Is it not a wonderful thing To be able to be able to lay claims of love upon Christ?

The poet George Herbert brought the greatest responsibility and the greatest privilege together in his poem "The Affliction". He writes:

Ah my dear God! though I am clean forgot,
Let me not love thee, if I love thee not.

It is of course a paradox, saying I do not deserve to love God unless I love him sincerely. God forbid that I would be allowed the greatest privilege and mercy of loving thee if I do not fulfil the greatest commandment.