Christ the scope of Scripture

The Puritan Isaac Ambrose (1604-1664). said: "Let a man have what the
world can give, yet if he have not Christ, he is nothing worth. Christ
is the marrow and fatness, the fulness and sweetness of all our
endowments, separate Christ from them and they are bitter and do not
please us, empty and do not fill us." "Surely Christ is enough to
fill all our thoughts, desires, hopes, loves, joys or whatever is
within us or without us. Christ alone comprehends all the
circumference of all our happiness. Christ is the pearl hid in the
large field of God's word Christ is the scope of all the scripture:
all things and persons in the old world were types of him; all the
prophets foretold him, all God's love runs through him, all the gifts
and graces of the Spirit flow from him, the whole eye of God is upon
him, and all his designs both in heaven and earth meet in him; the
great design of God is this, That " he might gather together in one
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on
earth, even in him," Eph. 1:10".

He has another more well-known quotation about Scripture in this
regard: "Keep still Jesus Christ in your eye, in the perusal of the
Scriptures, as the end, scope and substance thereof: what are the
whole Scriptures, but as it were the spiritual swaddling clothes of
the holy child Jesus? 1. Christ is the truth and substance of all the
types and shadows. 2. Christ is the substance and matter of the
Covenant of Grace, and all administrations thereof; under the Old
Testament Christ is veiled, under the New Covenant revealed. 3. Christ
is the centre and meeting place of all the promises; for in him the
promises of God are yea and Amen. 4. Christ is the thing signified,
sealed and exhibited in the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament.
5. Scripture genealogies use to lead us on to the true line of Christ.
6. Scripture chronologies are to discover to us the times and seasons
of Christ. 7. Scripture-laws are our schoolmasters to bring us to
Christ, the moral by correcting, the ceremonial by directing. 8.
Scripture-gospel is Christ's light, whereby we hear and follow him;
Christ's cords of love, whereby we are drawn into sweet union and
communion with him; yea it is the very power of God unto salvation
unto all them that believe in Christ Jesus; and therefore think of
Christ as the very substance, marrow, soul and scope of the whole
Scriptures."

John Owen had a similar view, reflecting on Luke 24:27, "It is
therefore manifest that Moses, and the Prophets, and all the
Scripture, do give testimony unto him and his glory. This is the line
of life and light which runs through the whole Old Testament".

Richard Muller notes that it was common in Reformed writers to see
Christ as the "scope" of Scripture "…the theologies of the Reformers
and of their orthodox successors consistently place Christ at the
center of their discussions of redemption, consistently understand
Christ as the center and fulfillment of divine revelation, and equally
consistently understand the causality of salvation as grounded in the
divine purpose".

Muller comments on the definition of the term: "It is particularly
important that the contemporary English meaning of 'scope,' the full
extent, range, or intention of a thing, be excluded. The original
Greek (skopos) and Latin (scopus) indicates the center or bull's eye
of a target. Indeed, in the First Helvetic Confession, scopus
translates der Zweck of the German original. The term is rightly
understood, therefore, not as the aim, purpose, goal, and center,
indeed, the 'bull's eye' of the biblical target. The Latin title of
the section is simply 'scopus Scripturae,' but the German reads at
greater length and with a clearer definition of the issue, 'What the
center (Zweck) of Holy Scripture is, and toward what the Scripture
ultimately points.' The 'entire Bible' (die ganze biblische Schrift)
teaches 'that God is gracious and benevolent' and that he has bestowed
his grace upon mankind in the person of Christ, his Son, by means of
faith. Much as in Luther's statement concerning the canon and in the
Schmalkald Articles, the center of Scripture is not merely Christ
doctrinally understood, but Christ apprehended by faith as the focus
of God's work of reconciliation. The larger sense of scopus as the
divine work of reconciliation throughout Scripture is echoed in
Bullinger's use of the term to indicate the covenant - a usage that
will appear in the writings of some of the Protestant scholastic
theologians."

Ambrose applies this:

All things are summed up in this one Jesus Christ: if we look on the
creation, the whole world was made by Christ, if we look on
providences, all things subsist in Christ, they have their being, and
their well-being in him. Where may we find God but in Christ? Where
may we see God but in this essential and eternal glass? Christ is "the
face of God," 2 Cor. 4:6. " The brightness of his glory, the express
image pf his Father's person," Heb. 1:3. The Father is (as it were)
all sun, and all pearl; and Jesus Christ is the substantial rays, the
eternal and essential irradiation of the sun of glory: Christ outs God
as the seal doth the stamp: Christ reveals God, as the face of a man
doth reveal the man, so Christ to Philip," He that hath seen me, hath
seen the Father," John 14:9. q. d. I am as like the Father as God is
like himself: there is a perfect indivisible unity between the Father
and me, " I and the Father are one;" one very God, he the begetter,
and I the begotten: Christ is the substantial rose that grew out of
the Father from eternity: Christ is the essential wisdom of God;
Christ is the substantial word of God, the intellectual birth of the
Lord's infinite understanding: oh the worth of Christ! compare we
other things with Christ, and they will bear no weight at all; cast
into the balance with him, angels, they are wise, but he is wisdom;
cast into the balance with him men, they are liars, lighter than
vanity, but Christ is " the Amen, the faithful witness;" cast into the
scales kings, and all kings, and all their glory, why he is King of
kings; cast into the scale millions of talents' weight of glory; cant
in two worlds, and add to the weight millions of heavens of heavens,
and the balance cannot down, the scales are unequal, Christ outweighs
all. Shall I yet come nearer home? What is heaven but to be with
Christ? What is life eternal but to believe in God, and in hia Son
Jesus Christ? Where may we find peace with God, and reconciliation
with God, but only in Christ? "God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto himself," 2 Cor. 5:19. Where may we find compassion, mercy, and
gentleness to sinners, but only in Christ? It is Christ that takes otf
infinite wrath, and satisfies justice, and so God is a most lovely,
compassionate, desirable God in Jesus: alt the goodness of God comes
out of God through this golden pipe the Lord Jesus Christ. It is true
those essential attributes of love, grace, mercy and goodness, are
only in God, and they abide in God, yet the mediatory manifestation of
love, grace, mercy and goodness, is only in Christ; Christ alone is
treasury, store-house, and magazine of the free goodness and mercy of
the Godhead. In him we are elected, adopted, redeemed, justified,
sanctified and saved; he is the ladder, and every step of it betwixt
heaven and earth; he is the way, the truth and the life, he is honor,
riches, beauty, health, peace and salvation; he is a suitable and rich
portion to every man's soul: that which some of the Jews observe of
the manna, that it was in taste according to every man's palate, it is
really true of Christ, he is to the soul, whaisoevor the soul would
have him to hp. All the spiritual blessings wherewith we are enriched,
are in and v Christ: God hears otir prayers by Christ: God forgives us
our iniquities through Christ; all we have, and all we expect to have,
hangs only on Chtist: he is the golden hinge, upon which all our
salvation turns.

Oh! how should all hearts be taken with this Christ? Christiana! turn
your eyes upon the Lord: " Look, and look again unto Jesus," Why stand
ye gazing on the toys of this world, when such aChrist is offered to
you in the gospel? Can the world die for you? Can the world reconcile
you to the Father? Can the world advance you to the kingdom of heaven?
As Christ is all in all, so let him be the full and complete subject
of our desire, and hope, and faith, and love, and joy; let him be in
your thoughts the first in the morning, and the last at night. Shall I
speak one word more to thee that believest? Oh! apply in particular
all the transactions of Jesus Christ to thy very self; remember how he
came out of his Father's bosom for thee, wept for thee, bled for thee,
poured out his life for thee, is now risen for thee, gone to heaven
for thee, sits at God's right hand, and rules all the world for thee:
makes intercession for thee, and at the end of the world will come
again for thee, and receive thee to himself, to live with him for ever
and ever. Surely if thus thou believest and livest, thy life is
comfortable, and thy death will be sweet. If there be any heaven upon
earth, thou wilt find it in the practice and exorcise of this gospel
duty, in "Looking unto Jesus."

a blasphemous church in a blasphemous abuse of the Bible

Some of the media have more respect for God's Word than those who want to go by the name of Christian and church. Under the headline: 'Gallery's invitation to deface the Bible brings obscene response', we read, 'A publicly funded exhibition is encouraging people to deface the Bible in the name of art — and visitors have responded with abuse and obscenity'. The open Bible (Authorised Version) 'is a central part of Made in God's Image, an exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma) in Glasgow. By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: "If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it." The exhibit, Untitled 2009, was proposed by the Metropolitan Community Church, which said that the idea was to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text'.

Metropolitan Community Churches seem to be largely for homosexuals with an evangelical background. It celebrates "racial, cultural, linguistic, sexual, gender and theological diversity". It wants, however, to have some relation to historic belief as it's denominational statement of faith shows. After the exhibition they will retain the defaced bible as an exhibit in their church. They seem some symbolism in this and there is much indeed. It shows that they are a church that unashamedly blasphemes God by abusing His Word. 

We can read the attempt by the female 'minister' of this 'church' to justify it here. In their liberal naivety they thought that their invitation would receive a restrained and thoughtful kind of blasphemy such as they engage in themselves. They do not understand the nature of sin, however. 

The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury...misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways (Westminster Larger Catechism Question 113)

The third commandment reminds us that the Lord will not hold such guiltless.

Basil of Caesarea on Psalmody

Psalmody is the calm of the soul, the repose of the spirit, the
arbiter of peace: it silences the wave, and conciliates the whirlwind
of our passions, soothing that which is impetuous, and tempering that
which is unchaste. Psalmody is an engenderer of friendship, a healer
of dissension, a reconciler of those who were inimical; for who can
longer account that man his enemy, with whom to the throne of God he
hath raised the strain. Wherefore that first of blessings, Christian
love, is diffused by psalmody, which devises the harmonious concert as
a bond of union, and connects the people in choral symphonies.
Psalmody repels the demons; it lures the ministry of angels ; a weapon
of defence in nightly terrors, a respite from daily toil; to the
infant a presiding genius, to manhood a resplendent crown ; a balm of
comfort to the aged, a congenial ornament to women. It renders the
desert populous, and appeases the forum's tumult; to the initiated an
elementary instruction, to proficients a mighty increase ; a bulwark
unto those who are perfected in knowledge. It is the Church's voice.
This exhilarates the banquet; this awakens that pious sorrow which has
reference to God. Psalmody from a heart of adamant can excite the
tear; psalmody is the employment of angels, the delight of Heaven, and
spiritual frankincense. Oh! the sapient design of our Instructor,
appointing that at once we should be recreated by song and informed by
wisdom! Thus the precepts of instruction are more deeply engraven upon
our hearts: for the lessons which receive unwillingly have a transient
continuance; but those which charm and captivate in the hearing are
permanently impressed upon our souls. From hence may not every thing
be acquired ? Hence mayest thou not be taught whatever is dignified in
fortitude, whatever is consummate in justice, whatever is venerable in
temperance, whatever is sublime in wisdom? Hero the nature of
penitence is unfolded; patience is here exemplified. Is there a
blessing to be named which here resides not? The splendours of
Theology beam effulgent; Jesus is predicted; the resurrection is
announced; judgement" is proclaimed; the sword of vengeance is
unsheathed ; crowns of glory glitter; speakless mysteries astonish—all
these are treasured up in the Book of Psalms, as in a common treasury
of the soul.

Basil of Caesarea, also called Basil the Great, (330 – 379)

all of life worship? part 2

Like all slogans, the phrase "all of life is worship" is based on an
element of truth but as a simplistic generalisation it is essentially
untrue. We are to glorify God in everything but worship is something
different. The Bible clearly teaches that worship has a beginning
point (Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9,17; Mark 5:6; John 9:38;
Heb. 11:21) and an ending point (Luke 24:52) and that worship does
involve a "when" and a "where" (John 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11). Abraham
told his servants that he and Isaac would "go yonder and worship, and
we will come back to you" (Gen. 22:5). God told Moses to "come up to
the Lord ... and worship from afar" (Ex. 24:1).

There is a real difference between the activities of Colossians 3:16
and 3:17. The point is that the assembling of ourselves together in
public worship involves specific activities and is carefully
regulated. It is a corporate and not an individualistic activity -
individualism is part of the thinking behind "all-of-life-is-worship".
It's a way of making sabbath worship less important.

There is a distinction between a common meal at home and the Lord's
Supper in corporate worship in 1 Corinthians 11:18-34. Worship is
also distinct from home life in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The Larger
Catechism question 156 makes this distinction between the public
reading of the Word of God "to the congregation," which is only to be
done by those authorised, and the duty of all people "to read it apart
by themselves."

John Frame has a strange view of the regulative principle when he
says, "the regulative principle for worship is no different than the
principles by which God regulates all of our life." T. David Gordon
has pointed out in response to John Frame that the regulative
principle of worship deals with the limits of ecclesiastical power and
liberty of conscience. Either we have to make individual decisions
about worship or we are entirely regulated in our everyday decisions:

"The issue was not... 'worship' versus 'the rest of life,' but those
aspects of life governed by the church officers versus those aspects
of life not governed by the church officers.... Frame's attempt to put
'all of life' under one umbrella... is doomed to futility, because it
does not address the very issue the regulative principle was designed
to address, the limits of church power and the liberty of conscience."

Lewis Sabbath Ferry

We were encouraged that a BBC Article closed with these words from Rev. Dr James Tallach which express more clearly the point that I was wishing to make in my last post .

James Tulloch [sic] of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland said it "grieved the spirit when the law of God is broken".
He said the fourth commandment states "remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy".
"CalMac made a great play that they must keep the law", he said.
"Well, I ask them what about the law of God?
"We will not be tried at the end of the day, when all of us stand before the judgment seat of Christ, on the basis of EU law."

Whose law? Sabbath sailings

Robert McCheyne's lament over the Parisian Sabbath was: " Alas ! poor Paris knows no
Sabbath. All the shops are open, and all the inhabitants are on the wing in search of pleasures — pleasures that perish in the using. I thought of Babylon and Sodom as I passed through the crowd. I cannot tell how I longed for the peace of the Scottish Sabbath!" How much true-hearted people now long for the peace of the Scottish everywhere in Scotland! The spurious pretext for Caledonian MacBrayne forcing sabbath sailings on the Isle of Lewis (with the approval of the Scottish Government) is the Equality Act 2006. Yet they refuse to publish the legal opinion that they have obtained and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has not taken up their position. They are only able to say that one man's opinion is that not providing sabbath sailings is 'more than likely to be in breach of the Equality Act 2006'. It hardly sounds like a sure basis. The decision is of course just a commercial one and that is why it flouts the democratically expressed view of the people of Lewis in the Council and the recent Stornoway Trust elections not to mention an overwhelming petition. Yet there is a desire to appeal to law in order to cry down the law of God in order to take away the last protection of the Sabbath in Scotland. One man's less than absolute opinion about a human law that in many of its provisions opposes the law of God is to be appealed to as a sufficient authority. When men stop believing in God's law and authority, they start believing anything and everything. The idea behind the thought that any law can be independent of God's law is the sinful and self-destructive desire for autonomy. Autonomy is only a synonym for blasphemy.

This is what McCheyne pointed out in his day to sabbath breaking commercial transportation companies: 'If you shall really carry your motion, against the prayers and longings of God’s people in this land, then, sir, you will triumph for a little while; but Scotland’s sin, committed against light, and against solemn warning, will not pass unavenged'.

The appeal to discrimination is utterly spurious but such is the false one-sided logic of the Equality movement. Iain D Campbell of the Lord's Day Observance Society says: 'In fact there is no absolute right to a Sunday ferry service anywhere. CalMac don't run Sunday ferries from Mallaig to the Small Isles, for instance, or ferries anywhere on Christmas Day – I don't think anyone seriously argues that that's discrimination. Experience has actually shown that new Sunday ferries don't increase traffic, they just spread it, and there is no evidence whatever that Sunday ferries bolster a local economy. There have been Sunday sailings to the Uists and Barra for many years now and if anything their problems of unemployment, housing and depopulation are even worse than ours'.

Some refuge is sought for the open breach of God's law although it be a false refuge and a refuge of lies but there will be no refuge on the day of judgement. McCheyne warned commercial transportation companies in his day:

'Guilty men ! who, under Satan, are leading on the deep, dark phalanx of Sabbath-breakers, yours is a solemn position. You are robbers. You rob God of his holy day. You are murderers. You murder the souls of your servants. God said, ” Thou shall not do any work, thou, nor thy servant;” but you compel your servants to break God’s law, and to sell their souls for gain. You are sinners against light. Your Bible and your catechism, the words of godly parents, perhaps now in the Sabbath above, and the loud remonstrances of God-fearing men, are ringing in your ears, while you perpetrate this deed of shame, and glory in it. You are traitors to your country. The law of your country declares that you should ” observe a holy rest all that day from your own words, works, and thoughts ;” and yet you scout it as an antiquated superstition. Was it not Sabbath-breaking that made God cast away Israel ? And yet you would bring the same curse on Scotland now. You are moral suicides, stabbing your own souls, proclaiming to the world that you are not the Lord’s people, and hurrying on your souls to meet the Sabbath-breaker’s doom'.

We pray that in our day we will have ministers with the convictions and courage of McCheyne and Christians with the convictions and courage of the Strome Ferry men of 1883.

What is patience in relation to providence?

Thomas Goodwin in his invaluable treatise on Patience and its Perfect Work says, 'if you now ask a description of patience, as it thus respects suffering the will of God, we must give it as it is in the word of God in the height, for that is the rule itself that directs to it, and not down it to what is found in our hearts. And yet that which afterwards follows, and will confirm every tittle of it, is drawn mostly from examples of the saints, either in the Old or New Testaments, which shew that it is attainable, though with allowance to defects, which accompany all graces in this life.

It is a constant, thankful, joyful enduring, with perseverance to the end of a man's life, all the trials that are grievous, how great, how long, how hopeless soever as to coming out of them; mortifying and compescing the inordinacy of opposite passions, as fear, grief, care, anxiety, which wifi arise upon such afflictions; with submitting to God's will, for God's glory, and his good pleasure's sake; still blessing and sanctifying God in all, waiting on God, and relieving one's self by faith in what is to be had in God, and from God, in communion with him, and from his love, in this life; in expectation also of that glory which is the reward after this life ended.

I might, in this place, confirm every word and tittle of this description, either out of examples of holy men or the rules which the word gives. But I omit the set collection of such proofs here, because that, scatteredly, up and down, in the particulars that follow, this will be found performed'.

The definition may seem easy to one who feels crushed and bruised by Providence and in great perplexity. In this relation there is a very helpful meditation that can be made use of in a book by the puritan Thomas White which is called A Method and Instructions for the Art of Divine Meditation:

O blessed God, if the way of thy Providence be such, that thou wilt not give so much Grace as to make me, through the abundance of it, almost whether I will or no, to serve thee, yet to whom thou dost give so much grace as to desire more grace, O let not this desire which is of thy own infusing; be in vain, if there be any thing in the whole world that I desire more than thy grace, then let me want grace to desire it any more; Lord, if the reason why thou deniest my prayer, be, because I do not desire as I ought, I humbly beseech thee to grant that I ask aright; alas my afflictions lie heavier on me then ever they did, and I am more wicked, or at least less holy then ever since my conversion I was; how little am I affected with any thing that belongs to thy service, nor yet doth it affect me that I am not affected: Lord, if there were any in heaven or in earth that could help me besides thee, then considering my Manifold Sins, I should; I but Lord, I would not, thy Mercies are so great, go to any other: Now Lord, now is the time to have Mercy upon me; I am like the Man that went from Jerusalem to Jericho, wounded, naked, and half dead, I cannot call for help, O let my wounds move thee to compassion; if I could bewail my sinful Misery with tears of Repentance, I know thou wouldest deliver me, but I cannot weep, nay, hardly mourn; Oh faint, faint is my grief, and cold is my love! What wilt thou do, Lord, with one that scarcely from his heart desires to serve thee: Alas, what canst thou do for me more or less, then to make me desire to serve thee! Accept I must, or for ever be lost: What a low degree of goodness am I come unto? a soul full of sadness, and empty of goodness; To morrow, Lord, I am to receive thee into my soul, thee my blessed Saviour: Lord, thou knowest I did not use to have a heart so empty of goodness, when I expected thee to come next day.

The Forgotten Calvin

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

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

He also wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Psalms provide us with an infallible rule:

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

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

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

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

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

the personal reality of providence: faith penetrating more deeply

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

What is experimental preaching?

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

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

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

The sun of holiness

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

George Swinnock 

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

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

 

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

Is all of life worship?

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

Is a minister an employee?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

getting Christ better

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

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

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

Litigation among Christians

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

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

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

Thomas McCrie(1772-1835).

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

An open letter to Gordon Brown

To the Right Honourable Gordon Brown Prime Minister MP.

Dear Prime Minister,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

MAV

‘So Catholic it forgot to be Christian’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schism undoubted in the body of Christ

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

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

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

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

CofS General Assembly requires evangelicals to sin

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

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

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

 

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

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

The CofS and the rejection of the Bible

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Church of Scotland has set out a clear stall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev Steven Reid, said:

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

the presbyterian downturn in Scotland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Art of Living Well to God

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

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

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

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

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

How one small nation changed the world

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

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

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

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

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

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