holdfast

What God Expects in Response to Extraordinary Providence

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 07 Apr 2020 20:23:00 +0000

I am grateful to James Campbell from Connecticut for passing this on. It is an outline of Section 11 of Thomas Vincent's "God's Terrible Voice in the City" it was published in 1667, following the Great Plague and Fire in London in the years 1665 and 1666. I have taken the liberty of replacing London with Britain. I have only included the first thirteen because the remaining seven deal more with the loss of homes in the fire.

The Duties which God expects from Britain.

1. God expects that Britain should AWAKE.

2. God expects that Britain should stand in AWE of him.

3. God expects that Britain should now SEARCH and TRY OUR WAYS.

4. God expects that Britain should ACKNOWLEDGE OUR SINS unto him.

5. God expects that Britain should be HUMBLED under these judgments.

6. God expects that Britain should ACCEPT OF THE PUNISHMENT of our iniquity.

7. God expects that Britain should MOURN for our sins.

8. God expects that Britain should TURN from our evil ways.

9. God expects that Britain should SEEK him.

10. God calls upon Britain ... to PREPARE FOR GREATER TROUBLES.

11. God expects that Britain should trust no more in arms of flesh -- but in Himself alone.

12. God expects that Britain should have DEATH in continual remembrance.

13. God expects that Britain should retain great impressions of ETERNITY.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:05:00 +0000

Thomas Cartwright and the Bible

Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603) was the father of English Presbyterianism and of English Puritanism. He was a popular preacher in Elizabethan Cambridge. It was said that so many came to hear him that they considered taking the windows out and that "grave men ran like boys in the streets to get places in the church".

The Bible's Sufficiency

Thomas Cartwright was important as a Puritan who spoke out against the halfway house reform of Anglicanism with its episcopal government and ritual elements. The question at stake was whether the Word of God was sufficient in areas of practice as well as doctrine. Applying the regulative principle that the Church should keep to the express warrant of Scripture except for merely circumstantial things, Cartwright argued for a reform according to the Word of God along the presbyterian lines of Calvin's reform in Geneva. For this contending for the regulative authority of Scripture in the Church he was driven into exile. He responded graciously to the opposition that he received:

"I see not, how I could persuade myself, to have the quantity of a grain of mustard seed towards him (God), if unto the truth, labouring and travailing in this point, I should deny my simple help. And verily it were a daintiness and delicacy intolerable, if I should afford the loss of a little ease and commodity whereunto my life itself, if it had been asked, was due: if I should grudge to dwell in another corner of the world for that cause, for which I ought to be ready altogether to depart out of it, finally if I should think to witness with a little ink and paper that which numbers in other places have already witnessed with their blood."

Accurate Translation of the Bible

Cartwright's proficency in Greek, Latin and Hebrew were unrivalled in his day. While in exile it was suggested to Thomas Cartwright that he should refute the Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament into English, which had been published in Rheims in 1582. The men behind it came from Douai College which had been established in 1568 by William Allen to train Englishmen for the Roman Catholic priesthood, with the intention of sending them back to England. The main annotator of the Rheims New Testament was a man named Richard Bristow and the notes were virulently anti-protestant. It became part of the Douai Bible, which for many years was the official Romanist translation of the Bible into English.

Cartwright's refutation, Answer to the Preface to the Rhemish Testament (1602) was published just before his death. The Rheims Testament was not based on Greek manuscripts; instead it was a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome in the 4^th century A.D. As the preface to the Rhemes New Testament, 1582 stated: 'We translate the old vulgar Latin text, notthe common Greek text, for these causes…It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree'. The translation was almost deliberately obscure in areas in that it used in some places unfamiliar words that were taken directly from Latin. The annotations were also of such a Romanist bias as to undermine the New Testament, which was 'twitched aside with the wrench and wrest of their annotations'.

Some of his criticisms are relevant today and relate to the true nature of translation. He laid down the tenet that 'the title…the word of God' used in relation to translations 'agreeth only to the truth of God, which hath also the frame of his words' (Answer to the Preface to the Rhemish Testament, London, 1602, p.102). Like Calvin, he favoured essentially preserving the word order (T.H.L. Parker, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1971, p.102) in order to convey the majesty of the Scriptures. Thus there was to be a formal equivalence between the words used in the original Hebrew or Greek and the words in the translation. There was no countenance for the modern theory of translating thought for thought (dynamic equivalence). Only a formally equivalent mode of translation respected the verbal inspiration of the Scritpures.

Reformed theologians understood that while translation was necessary, and while they could convey the Word of God from the original Hebrew and Greek in substance, it could not be translated absolutely, perfectly, or exhaustively. It was necessary to make any final appeal to the originals of Hebrew and Greek. The Rheims translators in preferring the Latin Vulgate to the inspired originals were turning this upside down. As Cartwright put it 'they would (as it were) cover the head and majesty of the authentical copies in the Greek to bring them to subjection unto the old translation [the Latin Vulgate]' (p.93).

Alarmingly the same practice can also be seen in our own day in contemporary cross-cultural translation. In some versions Western principles and thought forms seem to dominate making the Scriptures in effect Westernised a opposed to reflective of biblical language and culture. Highly important doctoral research by Anthony H Nichols has investigated the influence of dynamic equivalence in several Far Eastern translations. The results are alarming: 'what emerged was the immense influence of the GNB [Good News Bible] on three important no-western versions'. It was concluded that 'the renderings of the more traditional 'formal-correspondence' Indonesian versions were regularly more culturally appropriate [in comparison with the dynamic equivalent versions]' (The dynamic equivalence translation theory of Eugene A. Nida and bible translation - a critique, University of Sheffield cf. Tyndale Bulletin, Vol.50.1, May 1999)

The Bible's Providential Preservation

Cartwright expressed his conviction in the Providential Preservation of Scripture. This is a doctrine which was never really questioned before the 19^th century in Protestant circles and is contained in the major confessions. Simply stated it says that God not only inspired the autographs (the Word of God as originally given and written down) but has preserved that same Word purely in all ages. 'The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them'. (Westminster Confession of Faith I.8).

Thus the Church does have an infallible Word to appeal to. If only the original autographs were infallible and inerrant then we do not have an infallible and inerrant Word of God today; hence the importance of this doctrine. In Cartwright's day it was Romanists who were attacking this doctrine, but in our own day it is attacked and disowned by the large majority of evangelicals. So much so that the standard evangelical statements of faith for associations and societies begin with the statement that the Scriptures 'as originally given' are infallible and inerrant rather than simply saying that the Scriptures are infallible without qualification.

The Romanists said that the manuscripts available in Hebrew and Greek were corrupt in order that they could assert the Latin Vulgate to be the only infallible Scriptures. Cartwright responded with the doctrine of Providential Preservation: '…we think it not amiss, to set down the general doctrine, that no one oracle or sentence of God can fall away. Whereby it will be evident that the holy Scriptures, both in the old & new testament written in the original tongues, cannot either by addition, detraction or exchange be corrupted. Whereunto the consideration of the author of them, ministereth a substantial proof. For seeing they are of God, [marg. Ps. 111.8.] all whose works remain forever: it followeth that all the holy scriptures, being not only his handywork, but as it were the chief and master work of all others, must have a continual endurance' (p.93).

[And] '…if it or any part thereof fall away, the same cannot according to the ordinances of God either inform us against ignorance, or warn us against danger, or comfort us against afflictions, or finally do any other duty unto us, which we have need of and they were prepared for. Thirdly, if the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee, & Greek fall: there is no high court to appeal, where controversy (rising upon the diversity of translations or otherwise) may be ended: so that the exhortation of having recourse unto the law & to the prophets, [marg. Isaiah. 8] and of our Saviour Christ asking how it is written, and how readest thou: are now either of none effect, or not sufficient: whilst these disgracers and disgraders of the Scripture have taught men to say, that the copies are corrupted, and the sense changed' (p.94-95). [It is] 'now more then 1500. years' [and] 'no sentence of any book of Canonical Scripture fallen away not only the matter of the Scripture, but also the words, not only the sense and meaning, of them, but the manner and frame of speech in them, do remain. For seeing the Scripture remaineth, [marg. 2 Tim. 3 .] which wholly both for matter and words is inspired of God: it must follow that the same words wherein the old and new testament were written and indited by the hand of God, do remain' (pp.99-101).

Cartwright's Passing

It was not long after he had published this vital defence of the Scriptures against the attacks of Rome that Cartwright finished his days. The Answer to the Preface to the Rhemish Testamentwas published in 1602 and Cartwright died exactly four hundred years ago having preached his last sermon in December 1603. Two days later, after spending two hours on his knees in great pain, he told his wife that he 'found wonderful and unutterable joy and comfort, God gave him a glimpse of Heaven before he came to it'. His Last Will and Testament expressed the desire to be buried 'without pomp and superstition used in the popish synagogue in times past'. He bequeathed his soul 'into the hands of Almighty God who hath redeemed me with the most precious Blood of His own and only Son Jesus Christ my Saviour and Redeemer, from all my sins'.

Christ revealed in the mystery of the incarnation

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 07:52:00 +0000

Notes (not verbatim) of a sermon preached by one of the ministers on Isaiah 49 v1-5:

'Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. 2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; 3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. 4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. 5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength'.

The incarnation is a great mystery. 'A body has thou prepared for me' said Christ. The body implies to that a soul was prepared as there is no human nature without both. The father and the Holy Spirit had their role in the incarnation but so did the Son Himself. He 'assumed' human nature.

The angel Gabriel announced the pending birth to Mary. (Gabriel tended to be the angel involved with events leading up to redemption, the angel Michael with warfare) Mary beleived what she was told. This must surely rank as one of the greatest exercises of faith in human history.

We don't know what conciousness Christ had while in the womb but some light is shed by the fact John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb when Christ had been conceived. No means were used in that calling of Christ from the womb, or Jeremiah's. God can use means and is above means.

Christ was eight days alive on the earth before being circumcised and named. He whose name is above every name, had no name for eight days -- this was part of His humiliation here one arth.

The passage refers to a sword. This is His word. The sword has two sides -- one to wound, and the other to heal by repentance. Words are used. Men distort language by using foul language. This is becoming prevalent in our day and in the media. Sometimes the first words people want to learn in a foreign language are the swear words -- that is human nature. Words that corrupt and scarify the conscience. But Christ's word heals. Adam heard this sword and its words in the garden of Eden. The first word it said was 'Where' -- it wasn't 'Adam, where art thou', but 'Where art thou, Adam'. Where are you spiritually? Adam left the garden of Eden having been taught that sin was to be taken away by the blood of sacrifice; he had a shdow of this in the animal killed to provide skins to cover him and Eve.

The 'polished shaft' is an arrow. It is polished so it doesn't catch on the bow-string. Ahab was killed by an arow shot from a bow drawn at venture. An enemy soldier fired an arrow at random above the Israelites and depspite his armour and disguise, it hit the king Ahab between the joint of his armour. Thar arrow was killing him all day. The enemy archer might never have learned that he killed King Ahab. So, the preachers of the gospel sometimes don't know when a sermon has been blessed to some soul - and that's good, the glory should be the Lord's.

There is a thorn in Africa, with barbs. It can pierce the hide of a rhinoceros. It gradually travels into the flesh. It can take weeks or months but often it will reach a vital organ and cause death. So, the word of God can be like that, killing the resistance there is in the natural heart to Himself. The natural heart cannot save itself.

Christ was hidden in the covenant -- His coming to earth in human nature was a mystery hidden in eternity. Satan knew nothing of it until the promise was made in the Garden of Eden of a seed that would bruise his head.

The speaker in the passage was to be named Israel -- that was Jacob's new name -- a 'wrestler with God', an 'overcomer with God'. The whole church of Christ was represented there in Jacob's family the night he wrestled. Jacob had to be weakened, by the thigh being damaged, before he overcame. Christ was weakened in order to overcome.

A reviving for the people of God

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 07:48:00 +0000

Notes of a sermon preached by one of the ministers on Isaiah 44 v1-5 on a Monday of a communion season. Not verbatim.

"Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. 3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: 4 And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses. 5 One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel".

The context was the Babylonian ambassadors who were sent to King Hezekiah. Isaiah's message to Hezekiah from the Lord was the fact that the Babylonian captivity was a fact, that it was to take place. What a dismal prospect and what anguish for the prophet: the Lord's cause low, things only to get worse and the judgements of the Lord coming on the nation. We have all these wonderful promises from Chapter 40 of Isaiah onwards, following on from the the news of captivity and solemn judgements. There is no unfaithfulness in the viisble church which will not meet with chastisement. Isaiah was getting promises, a view of the whole of history, the coming of the Messiah, the spread of the gospel through the world, the Day of Days and even glimpses of heaven.

The three points were:

1. The steadfastness of God's covenant, that immutable security.

2. The promise of reviving for the people of God

3. The effects of reviving in the midst of their bondage.

1. Covenant faithfulness. He addresses Israel in a most gracious way -- the truly Godly would hear, whatever the nation as a whole would do. He had spoken solemnly of their sins in ch43. "Yet now hear" -- I am still speaking, I am not silent, said the Lord.

Isaiah would not have been silent. We in the pulpits nowadays would wish to have unction and preach with a broken heart but we find our own hearts dry; have pity on the ministers of the gospel. But the Lord is not silent: His promises, word, access to the Throne of Grace.

There are plenty helps to understanding the Word. Rev Neil Cameron was once very low in his soul and turned to a book of sermons by the Covenanters and read one in which Guthrie of Fenwick preached on v3 of this chapter -- Mr Cameron said that he was hardly half-way through it when his spiritual mourning was turned to spiritual dancing.

In these verses the Lord is speaking in covenant faithfulness. It was the seed of Abraham and Isaac that God chose -- there was sovereignty in it. The national election of Israel was a picture of God's chosen people in every generation. Rev Jonathan Ranken Anderson said in a sermon that the Lord's people are always looking into themselves for reasons why the Lord chose them -- this is a form of the self-righteousness -- but that the Lord strips them and shows them there is no reason there. Humanly-speaking there are many who are much nicer than those whom He did choose, it's sovereign love, nothing in them. V2...The Lord formed them "from the womb" - the womb of regeneration. "You must be born again". It's your duty to seek Christ and ask that he would give you the new Birth by His Holy Spirit. There is covenant faithfulness seen in Abraham waiting for the promised seed for many years -- don't you despair but plead for the New Birth, seek Him all you days. Life eternal is formed in the womb of regeneration.

V2 also says 'Fear Not'. You still have abundant reasons to take the Lord at His word: it's His faithfulness, word and covenant. The Lord's people are given to Christ by the Father. That's an immutable ground of security. It is purchased by the Redeemer's blood, the merit of Christ's death is signified by it, and that never loses its efficacy. (Hebrews 13 has a sublime account of the connection between the blood and the resurrection) Are you fleeing to the hope set before you by the Crucified Christ? We may grieve away the Spirit but He never leaves the soul with regard to that soul's state. When He enters the soul He takes up residence.

2. Reviving promised. These promises are made to those that are feeling thirsty and dry. Every sinner is welcome to God's promises -- there is no restraint in the gospel call. But these promises in this chapter are for the Lord's people who are feeling thirsty and dry. Tha psalmist knew this when he said: "My thirsty soul longs vehemently and faints thy courts to see" and "Like as the hart for water brooks, in thirst doth pant and bray, so pants my longing soul O God, that come to thee I may". Real thirst is vehement, insatiable, longing for moisture. It is a raging vigorous vehement powerful longing. We are very ready to say we are 'dry' and 'thirsty' spiritually, but if we really felt it, would it not drive us to the Throne of Grace for blessing?

The Saviour had physical thirst on the cross. He thirsted in order to put the Cup of Salvation on the gospel table. You're feeling your dryness and need a long draught of Jesus Christ in the gospel promise. In the past, that gave you strength and purified your desires. But by your own sloth you let it slip. Here is a promise for you: "I will pour waters on him that is thirsty". The second half of the verse shows us what that promise means. The water is a picture of the Holy Spirit. What greater blessing could be desired? The Holy Spirit, that clear crystal river of water. Christ purchased the blessings of the Holy Spirit for His people, He merited the out-pouring of this Person. The Holy Spirit was always in the church from the beginning of time, but there was a greater outpouring after the crucifixion. He sanctifies and purifies the soul and is Christ's marriage bond to the believer in conversion.

We need cleansing as well as invigoration. It's true in the natural realm. In a garden, rain is not enough. It needs weeding round the plants to be fruitful. What need we have to be convicted of sin. He shows them their sins. Surely we should be desiring to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and when we sense that we are being urged to go on our knees or go and read the Bible we should do that, and not say we have other things to attend to. Everything else will be dealt with later if we go and pray or read at these times; if we don't, then the things to which we gave priority often turn out to be more difficult. The Monday thanksgiving day of the communion was a standing ordinance in the Church of the Reformation in Scotland since the time of the Kirk of Shotts revival. May we never lose the Monday service and may we never lose the communion season.

The Lord Jesus revives by faith laying hold, by the work of the Spirit, on the promises. If you have vehement desires for Christ, the Holy Spirit has not left you. The Holy Spirit is an infinite Person. You remember, dear unconverted friend here today, that there are people here today who have God in them. There is ample sufficiency in Him to meet all their needs.

We need reviving in our church here in the islands. Where are the young people? There is no lack of children in other areas. Have we been negligent, have we failed to shield them for influences, have we not shielded them, for example from the television? That is not enough if we don't have the Spirit. We must plead with the Lord that He would pour out His Spirit on our seed. People on the mainland speak of how well off we are for ministers in our church in these islands; but this may be a last call by the Lord. In twenty years time, unless the Spirit of the Lord is poured out on us, there will be very little left. We do believe in better days in the future but we need an outpouring.

3. The effects of reviving.

The verses mention the willow trees -- these always lean by trunk and by roots towards the river, the water source. There will be a clear witness on the side of Christ. This church was set up in 1893 to pass on inviolate the teachings of Scripture. The principles for which we stand will flourish in the future.

Sin removed by a mighty Saviour

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:43:00 +0000

Some notes of a sermon preached by one of the ministers on Zechariah 3v9.... "I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day". 1. the greatness of Christ's suffering; 2. the greatness of the strength of Christ, and 3. the greatness of His love.

Adam's one 'small' act of disobedience had massive repercussions for the millions of his descendants; one sin led to another and the corruption brought in by his one act of disobedience has led to an infinite number of sins. Each sin any one person commits can lead to dreadful results too in future generations.

Christ's sufferings were in his human nature as the divine nature cannot suffer (contrary to the error which is beginning to appear now). Christ had great love to His own people in the great victory wrought.

Samson was a type of Christ. Just as Samson brought down the house of his enemies by heaving down the two pillars which held it up, so Christ leaned His strength against Sin and Death - the two pillars holding up the House of Satan. And just as Samson destroyed more of the Philistines in his death than he did in his life, so Christ caused great destruction to Satan in His own death.

The Prodigal Son

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:56:00 +0000

Notes of a sermon preached by one of our ministers on the prodigal son.

The Father saw the prodigal returning while he was 'yet a great way off'. The Most High chose His people in a past eternity and when the time comes for them to be converted in Time, as quick as a flash the Holy Spirit is at work in them.

The garment that was put on the prodigal speaks of the garment of Christ's righteousness which is put on His people. That garment was not complete until the Resurrection. When a person trusts in Christ by saving faith it is as if they put their arms into this garment.

The ring put on the prodigal's hand reminds us of power. Pharaoh put his ring on Joseph's finger although he had just been taken out of prison. A ring speaks of marriage and the Lord has his betrothed. A ring has no beginning and no end, just like eternity. The wandering evangelist, Finlay Munro said that to a lady who showed him the ring on her hand when he met on the moor of Lewis at the Ness shielings.

The shoes are important. Servants and the poor in Israel would not wear shoes. To have shoes meant you were in the house or in the family. It also means that the prodigal was to be obedient; for the Lord's people the shoes signify that they are to walk in a new direction, in the paths of holiness.

The fatted calf was kept for special occasions – family events or the various feasts in Israel. What it means is the best food available.

God's Word is God's Weapon

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 09:47:00 +0000

On minister preached on Psalm 19 v7:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple".

He spoke of God's word in the hand of the Spirit being like the smooth stone which David fired at Goliath from his sling. The stone had been prepared for centuries in the nearby river, worn smooth by other stones and made ready for the day it was to be slung and find an opening in Goliath's armour: so the word has been prepared and made ready as an instrument of the covenant, despite the devil's attempts to distort it (by unreliable versions, Westcott and Hort etc).

When is a Calvinist not a Calvinist?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:20:00 +0000

...when they are bellowing forth Arminian doctrine in a hymn. One of the Arminian hymns some Calvinists are most partial to is Charles Wesley's "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling". Even Wikipedia will tell you that the theme of this hymn is "Christian perfection". In other words it is about sinless perfectionism, the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification, sometimes called the second blessing. The hymn is also based on a secular theatrical song by John Dryden "Fairest Isle, all Isles Excelling". The closing line comes from a poem by Joseph Addison. Wesley published it in four stanzas in Hymns for those that seek, and those that have Redemption in the Blood of Christ (1747).

Here is the full hymn in its original form where the theme of sinless perfection is very much on the surface. None of the blessings that it envisages is beyond death. Even in almost every amended version in hymn books it is only the last three lines that speak of the heavenly state.

Love divine, all loves excelling,
Joy of Heav’n to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling;
All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesu, Thou art all compassion,
Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation,
Enter every trembling heart.

Breathe, O breathe Thy loving Spirit
Into every troubled breast!
Let us all in Thee inherit;
Let us find that second rest.
Take away our power of sinning;
Alpha and Omega be;
End of faith, as its beginning,
Set our hearts at liberty.

Come, Almighty to deliver,
Let us all Thy life receive;
Suddenly return, and never,
Nevermore Thy temples leave.
Thee we would be always blessing,
Serve Thee as Thy hosts above,
Pray and praise Thee without ceasing,
Glory in Thy perfect love.

Finish, then, Thy new creation;
Pure and sinless let us be;
Let us see Thy great salvation
Perfectly restor'd in Thee;
Chang'd from glory into glory,
Till in Heav’n we take our place,
Till we cast our crowns before Thee,
Lost in wonder, love, and praise.
What does Wesley mean by "perfect love"? This was his name for sinless perfection. The believer experienced what he called an "instantaneous change". "Since that change they enjoy perfect love. They feel this, and this alone; they rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in every thing give thanks. Now this is all that I mean by Christian perfection". Notice that this is what he means by "pray and praise thee without ceasing" in the hymn. Elsewhere he says that the "properties or inseparable fruits" of perfect love are "rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing and in everything giving thanks". See Witnesses of Perfect Love: Narratives of Christian Perfection in Early Methodism By Amy Caswell Bratton.

Article XI of the Methodist Articles puts it starkly:

Entire sanctification is a state of perfect love, righteousness and true holiness which every regenerate believer may obtain by being delivered from the power of sin, by loving God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, and by loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. Through faith in Jesus Christ this gracious gift may be received in this life both gradually and instantaneously, and should be sought earnestly by every child of God.

He compares the "instant in which life ceases" in death to the death of sin in us, "if ever sin ceases, there must be a last moment of its existence, and a first moment of our deliverance from it". This is what he means in saying "Come Almighty to deliver, let us all thy life receive". It does not matter if you talk about sin being suspended in them rather than destroyed, they "are all love". Receiving the divine life is equivalent to what he says about the new creation being finished and salvation being perfectly restored in the new status of perfect love. Receiving the divine life is "becoming partakers of the divine nature which for John Wesley was "being renewed in the image of God, and having communion with them, so as to dwell in God and God in you". They receive the holiness of Christ himself. Wesley comments "as he - Christ. Is - All love. So are we". Of course many hymn books swap "life" for "grace" which only tones down the perfectionism.

Strangely many hymn books still have "Finish then thy new creation", which is breathtaking. The new creation being finished in this life?! Some older books changed it to "Carry on then.." "The Great Salvation" was another common term to refer to sinless perfection in early Methodism.

Many versions of this hymn still have salvation being perfectly restored, again here and now. Most have "pure and spotless" which is only just slightly less obvious than "sinless" but spotlessness now amounts to the same thing.

Charles Wesley says that "one perfected in love may grow in grace far swifter than he did before" and this is what is meant by "all thy faithful mercies crown" and "changed from glory into glory".

Serving God "as thy hosts above" is unambiguous perfectionism. John Wesley spoke of it in these terms:

In a word, he doeth the will of God on earth, as it is done in heaven.

Some Methodists did claim angelic perfection. Is it any wonder?

What does "second rest" mean? Fletcher, of Madeley, remarked:-- "Mr. Wesley says second rest, because an imperfect believer enjoys a first, inferior rest; if he did no, he would be no believer."

It is of course possible to gut Wesley's hymn absolutely of his theme but this seems like making a hymn about the Trinity, Unitarian. Most versions of the hymn retain the traces of sinless perfectionism.

It is clear that those who sing hymns rarely stop to carefully consider the theology they confess but are often carried away with a sentimental view and may mistake the true meaning in their taking away what they think to be the general gist. People sing about the power of cancelled sin being broken, but is that actually what they believe?

For those who defend hymn singing by saying "if you can preach it you can sing it". (Ignoring plain Scripture commands by setting up a principle of their own) How much of what they sing would they in fact preach?

Those who sing the psalms only never sing error, nor are ever in any danger of it. Moreover, the Word of Christ dwells in them richly.

Our Duty to Civil Governments according to Scripture Commands

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 May 2017 12:25:00 +0000

Adam Gib gives a comprehensive reply to those who say that we ought not to acknowledge the present civil government and constitution and subjection to it in lawful commands. This was a point of contention with Reformed Presbyterians in his day. When he refers to the Presbytery he means the Associate Presbytery who were a Secession body.

To Gib it was very clear.

The verdict of Scripture in this matter, is not comprehended in some few, dark or transitory hints. This is obviously taught and confirmed by a great number of passages throughout Holy Writ: Yea, there are few truths, relative to the practice of Christians, that are more clearly taught in the Word, or more inculcated, than this is.

He presents arguments from 6 Scriptures precepts or commands before examining approved examples in Scripture and then demonstrates the perpetual obligation of the precepts and examples. After this he shows that this was the position of the Continental Reformed Churches also before examining the historic position of the Church of Scotland and the Covenanters. It is a very long and comprehensive treatment!

Scripture Precepts

Argument I. From Prov. xxiv. 21.

The first that shall be noticed, is recorded Prov. xxiv. 21. My son, fear thou the Lord and the King: And meddle not with them that are given to change. Though these words be expressed in the singular number, it would be superfluous to prove, That they must be taken in a plural sense; determining the duty, particularly of the Lord’s people, towards Kings: Nor could Solomon, while himself a King, be partial in this case, because he spoke as moved by the Holy Ghost.

I. The former clause of this precept is positive; My son, fear thou the Lord and the King. And the first thing which, in the present case, must be considered, is the duty here prescribed towards Kings, viz. to fear them. This fear cannot be of a slavish sort, because it is commanded; and that as subordinate unto the fear of the Lord. Again, this fear cannot merely signify that disposition of mind which we ought to have toward Kings. But, as the fear of the Lord, in Scripture stile, doth signify, not only an inward disposition of mind; but also all these external duties that we owe to him: So the fear of Kings must also denote all these external duties that we owe to them. Now, from the nature of the thing, all such duties are reducible to these two heads. First, We must confess that they are Kings; by owning their authority, and submitting to their just laws. Secondly, That this acknowledgment and submission may not be treacherous, we must, in our several capacities, testify against all these particular evils whereby they answer not or contradict the duty of Kings. These are the parts of fear toward Kings; so inseparable, that neither of them can be duly managed unless they be jointly exercised. And this is just what the Presbytery asserts, with respect to the present Civil Government. The next thing to be considered here is, the objects of the duty enjoined, viz. Kings. And, upon this head, it must be premised, that as the different forms of Civil Government agree in their general nature, and as none of them has any institution exclusive of others; so the general rule of duty towards the supreme legislative power under any one of these forms, answers as well under them all: However, it is monarchical or kingly government that is here immediately respected.

The question will now be, What sort of Kings are the people of God thus commanded to fear? And, in the first place, it is certain, that they are commanded to fear only such as are acknowledged by the kingdom they are in; while none else are Kings with respect to them. In the next place, It is as certain, that they are commanded to fear any whom that kingdom acknowledges as Kings, and while they do so. For,

1. This precept was still handed down to the Jews, from one generation to another, as part of the oracles of God immediately committed unto them; nor was it at any time altered, limited or suspended: And therefore it continued always an uniform rule of duty from God unto them, with reference to whatever Kings were acknowledged as such, by the kingdom of Judah and Israel; though most of these were chargeable with unparalleled evils, not only in respect to their private character and conduct, but in their public administration. As it must be still remembered, that though God might justly plead a controversy with that land, and many time did so, both for the sins of the body politic, in not attending to all the rules he gave them anent the choice of their Kings, and in not endeavouring to reform their wicked Kings; as also, for the sins of the people severally, in not testifying duly against, but complying with the sinful statutes and idolatrous practices of their Kings: Yet, while the primores regni and better part of the nation acknowledged such as their Kings, consenting to their regal authority; the office and authority of these Kings did, therefore, still continue valid, so as the particular subjects were bound in conscience to submit unto, and obey their lawful commands: Because that civil authority, having its rise in the consent of the people according to the indispensable law of nature,it could not be subverted by their defection and apostasy; or by their Kings, in consequence thereof, wanting scriptural qualifications.

2. The Jewish people were obliged by God to reckon that, in the matter of this precept, they were but on a level with the people of all other kingdoms; in respect of whatever Kings were thereby acknowledged: And that they themselves were, by this precept, bound to fear these Kings, when, sojourning in their dominions. For these whom other kingdoms acknowledged as Kings, are, all along, by the Spirit of God in scripture, acknowledged and accounted of as such; and that in as unexceptionable terms as any of the Jewish Kings are: In regard there is not the least word in scripture, which so much as insinuates that these kingdoms were wrong in thus acknowledging them; but, on the contrary, the scripture always countenances them in doing so, and leaves not the Jews any occasion of doubting, that the character and right of these Kings did not agree unto this precept. To this purpose, when our Lord Jesus, who is Mediator betwixt God and man, says, by his Spirit through Solomon (Prov. viii. 15, 16.); By me Kings reign, and Princes decree justice; By me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the earth: It is undeniable that, in these words, he not only narrates the government, but sustains the authority of Judges or Kings: And it is as plain, that not only the Jewish Kings are here spoken of, but all the Kings of the earth; so that the authority of all is sustained on a level. When therefore the Jews received this precept, with reference unto their own Kings; it is evident that other oracles of God, and particularly the above cited, did at the same time necessitate them to reckon, that whatever Kings were acknowledged as such by other kingdoms, had an equal right unto fear from their people; and that they themselves were equally obliged, by this precept, to fear such Kings, when sojourning in their dominions: According whereunto, when long after some of them were scattered through the countries of such Kings; this same precept was repeated [1 Pet. ii. 17.], as in force with application to them in these circumstances.

In a word, this text doth plainly teach, that the Lord’s people, particularly, ought to fear all Kings who are acknowledged as such by the kingdom they belong to; as there is no exception made here or elsewhere in scripture.

And, indeed, there was no need of any exception or limitation to be added unto this precept. He who commanded to fear Kings, did, at the same time, know well enough, that neither all, not most, nor any of them, were free of manifold and gross corruptions. By his inspiration it was, that Solomon saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there, Eccl. iii. 16. However, the precept given did sufficiently hit such cases, without needing any restriction. For as there never were, nor could be, any Kings acknowledged as such by a kingdom, but who administered some justice; so all the duty of particular subjects, under the worst of these Kings, is sufficiently comprehended in this command: As it binds them to acknowledge and submit unto their authority, in any lawful exercise of it, while the kingdom sustains their government; but at the same time obliges them, and leaves them full capacity to testify and contend, in their several places, against all their corruptions, and, in this way, to endeavour the reformation of the government: So that the subjection commanded, can never involve them in the guilt of public corruptions.

Here, then, the duty of the Lord’s people, particularly, towards Kings, is fully stated; and it is the same with what the Presbytery now affirms. Nor is this a duty of small importance; while the fear of the King is commanded jointly with the fear of the Lord: And so, whatever religion any profess toward God, they will not be found duly upright therein, when contradicting the duty toward Kings which God here requireth.

II. The latter clause of this precept is negative; Meddle not with them that are given to change.

For understanding this, it must first be considered, who are the persons referred to by the pronoun [them]: And it is needless to prove, because so evident, that the text will not admit of any other sense here,than to understand it of those who are bound to fear the Lord and the King, who yet are given to change; and whom, therefore, the sincerer sort are discharged to meddle with.

And now it is supposed, that there will readily be some men given to change; men of a restless spirit, of a double mind, and of an unstable conduct: Men addicted to novelties; and who, particularly, will depart out of the old road of duty toward civil superiors, upon new pretences. And where innovations are made here, there will readily be some change in the profession or practice of religion; as the fear of the Lord and the King are linked together, and the text speaks jointly of being given to change in both.

At the same time it is here implied, that even the children of God are in danger of meddling with such persons; and have special need to be upon their guard against them.

Thus, in these words, there is an express condemnation of changes from the old path of duty towards civil superiors.

Again, there is here a solemn charge given to the sons of God, to notice the danger they are in of being led aside by the specious pretences that such persons may use, and not so much as to meddle with them; for if they stand not at a distance, they may readily be entangled.

Moreover, this caution and charge is a plain confirmation of, and a sense that God hath set about that very principle and conduct which the Presbytery does maintain from this text.

**Argument II. From Eccles. x. 4.**

The next precept that shall be considered, is found in Eccles. x. 4. If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences. And here the following observations may be made.

1. For the same reasons that were advanced upon the former text, this must necessarily be understood as spoken to the Lord's people, with reference to any rulers presently acknowledged by the civil state which they belong to.

2. There is a supposition here made, If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee. This rising up of spirit must be understood as groundless, and therefore sinful; because the person spoken to is supposed not, as yet, to have left his place or duty. Again, this rising spirit must be understood as venting itself, by word or action; for, otherways, it could have no tendency to drive a person out of his place. And as the expression is general, without being confined unto any certain occasion or degree of rising up, or unto any particular manner of venting itself; it will therefore necessarily comprehend any wrath or wrong that a particular subject may meet with at the ruler ‘s hand, whether upon private quarrels, or on account of religion; as enmity against religion is vented always upon the professors thereof.

3. There is a direction here given, Leave not thy place: Which cannot be taken in a local sense, on several accounts; and particularly, because then the next words (viz. For yielding pacifieth great offences), instead of being a reason for this command, would be a plain contradiction of it. The words must therefore be taken in a moral sense, as respecting the special business and duty of the subject; which, as hath been considered, is to fear the King or Ruler. The first two clauses, then, of this text, do plainly teach us, That, upon supposition of a ruler ‘s being so corrupt as, without just ground, to discountenance, discourage or distress the subject, upon personal or religious accounts; the subject must not, in the mean time, repay him evil for evil: But while he is bound to use lawful endeavours, as his calling gives access, for self- preservation, for vindicating his innocency and the cause for which he suffers, and for having the government reformed; he must, at the same time, continue in subjection and obedience to the ruler in lawful matters, while the civil state continues to acknowledge him. And as this can be no way inconsistent with his faithful endeavours otherways; so hereby he will approve himself unto God and men, as single, self-denied, and conscientious in these endeavours. But,

4. There is a reason added to this command, For yielding pacifieth great offences. This clause cannot consist with the former, unless it be taken in a moral sense. And as a reason is here given of the foregoing command, so it cannot make sense, unless this yielding be understood as the same thing with the duty commanded. And therefore, the meaning will be this, Leave not, or keep, thy place; for yielding, or the keeping of thy place, pacifieth great offences.

Here then we are informed that, when the spirit of the ruler riseth up unjustly against the subject, corrupt nature (as is evidently seen in the present controversy) is ready to manage a selfish opposition; in retaliating the ruler, by transgressing also the rule of duty toward him: And therefore, the subject ‘s keeping by his duty in that case, is fitly called an yielding; as it is contrary to that selfish opposition which corrupt nature is inclined unto.

It is said, that this yielding pacifieth great offences: And it does so in two ways.

(1.) By way of antidote. For the subject ‘s standing to his duty in that capacity, when the spirit of the ruler riseth up against him, is an habile mean for convincing the ruler of his error, and for extinguishing the offence he has taken.

(2.) By way of anticipation; as it is an habile mean for preventing farther evils and extremes which both the ruler and the subject may afterwards be driven to, if once the subject leave his place: For the beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water; therefore (saith the Lord) leave off contention, before it be meddled with, Prov. xvii. 4.

And, upon the whole, it is very evident from this text, that the scheme of such as oppose what the Presbytery here affirms, as it is a leaving their place, because of the unwarrantable opposition that the ruler stands in to them in any cause of truth which they profess; so it is a direct breach of God’s command, and has a proper tendency to perpetuate these errors or evils wherewith the ruler is chargeable, instead of reforming him: Yea, it is properly calculated for driving both him and them farther forward into great offences. And, on the other hand, it is as plain, that the principle and conduct which the Presbytery maintains, is openly held forth and expressly enjoined by God’s command; and that it is a mean and method of God's appointment, for pacifying great offences, viz. in reforming the Magistrate from his present corruptions, in preventing the farther growth thereof, and in preserving the Lord’s people from other evils and extremes they may be driven to, in this time of trial and temptation, if they study not to keep their place as above explained.

**Argument III. From Luke xx. 25.**

The third precept which the Presbytery adduces for confirming the principle here maintained is delivered by our Lord, Luke xx. 25. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s and unto God the things which be God’s. And, for the clearing of this text, there are several things to be considered; viz.

I. A question was now proposed unto our Lord, anent a certain people ‘s subjection to a certain ruler. The people were not Gentiles, or such as had never been reformed; but Jews, a people in covenant with God, whom the Lord had chosen to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that were upon the earth. Again, the ruler was Caesar, an heathen; who, at this time, did actually rule over the Jewish people, being by them acknowledged as their King, John xix. 15.

II. The question proposed to our Lord anent that people and this ruler, was, Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar or no? The question is not, whether any tribute allotted to the use of the temple should be alienated unto Caesar ‘s use; but it is anent paying of tribute in general, as an effect and token of their subjection unto Caesar. And unto this general question our Lord answers, in the words above cited.

When his answer is considered, it appears too bold to pretend, that therein he shifts the question, and leaves Caesar’ s title unto tribute from the Jews undetermined. For,

1. It is very true that these hypocrising spies, who put the question to our Lord, were sent out, by the Chief priests and the scribes, upon a captious and very wicked design; which they were at liberty to pursue more privately, or before the people, as they should find occasion. And, accordingly, when they did now question him before

the people, it was not for information, as if they doubted anent paying of tribute to Caesar; but it was that they might take hold of his words (or entangle him, as Matth. xxii. 15). And it is equally true, that as he perceived their craftiness, and rebuked them for it; so he gave them an answer that disappointed them: For they could not take hold of his words before the people; and they marveled at his answer, and held their peace. Their disappointment, then, did ly here, that they could not take hold of his words before the people, which was the malicious errand they had been sent out upon. And this does not signify, that they could not understand his words; for then their wicked errand had been no more than to understand what he spoke, which is absurd: But the meaning is, that they could not entangle him, or make an handle of his words against him.

However, for the farther opening of this case, it is needful to observe, That, when proposing the question, as they deceitfully introduced themselves by professing that he did not accept the person of any; so, they did not want that our Lord should own Caesar’s title, as if hereby he would raise the people against himself: For there is no ground given to suppose that this would have provoked them, but the contrary. And besides, they were sent to take hold of his words, so as to deliver him unto the power and authority of the Governor who ruled under and for Caesar; and before whom, therefore, they durst not accuse any for owning Caesar. And so it is plain, that they could not presently have any thing in view, but that either he should expose himself to the pains of the Roman law, by disowning Caesar’ s title; or that he should own it in such terms, as would reflect or encroach upon the privileges of the Jewish Church and religion, so as they might deceitfully forge an accusation against our Lord Jesus before the Governor, upon the matters of their law. But in any such expectations our Lord disappointed them. For, in his answer, he acknowledged Caesar’s title: And by annexing, at the same time, the command of rendering unto God the things which be God’s, he preserved the regard and obedience that were due unto God, in his Being and institutions; and determined the just manner and measure of obedience unto Caesar, so as, however they might be rebuked by it, they could not find fault with it. Thus, he disappointed their wicked design in all respects. They could not take hold of his words before the people; they could not find him chargeable with any encroachment upon either civil or ecclesiastic law; nor durst they alledge any such thing, while the people were present and capable of contradicting so false an accusation. And now, they were not only silent, but they marveled at his answer: There was divine wisdom in it, worthy of the Son of God and worthy to be marveled at; as it would have been every way unworthy of him, and unworthy of being marvelled at, if his words had contained no wisdom but what lies in ambiguity, shifting or equivocation. But again,

2. To alledge that this was the case here, would be an using too much freedom with the person and perfection of Jesus Christ. He might indeed have lawfully refused to answer their captious question, had he seen meet; but to impute a shifting or equivocal answer unto our Lord, is to reproach and blaspheme him. For, either Caesar had not a just title, or he had: If he had not, then a shifting answer would have, at least, dissembled and palliated sin; instead of tending to reclaim from it; if he had, then such an answer would have, at least, dissembled and dishonoured truth; instead of declaring and recommending it. Besides, the answer given plainly bears the shape and force of a command: And it must be very dishonouring unto the person and perfection of Christ, to fix upon him an ambiguous and shifting command, or a command that commands no certain thing. Again,

3. To suppose, that our Lord’s answer shifts the question, would be an using violence upon the words; for, shifting is inconsistent with the very nature of a command: And farther, it is remarkable that,

(1.) Our Lord begins to confound his crafty examiners, by enquiring at them anent the coin of their current money, (as the tribute money could have no coin distinct from other money); and he finds, out of their own mouth, that it bore Caesar’s image and superscription: Thus he draws from themselves, both an evidence and acknowledgment of Caesar’s dominion over them.

(2.) He immediately brings this in as a reason of the command, Render THEREFORE unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s. And this word [therefore] can have no reasoning in it, and the form and strength of the whole argument must be destroyed; unless it be understood to intimate that the command is brought in as agreeing unto, and as an inference from what had been immediately before confessed, viz. That the money bore Caesar’s image and superscription. Now the command cannot possibly agree unto, or be an inference from this; unless it enjoin the paying of tribute to Caesar. And so the meaning is, as if our Lord had said, Caesar is actually, and by the nation ‘s consent, your Supreme Civil Ruler; as appears, among other things, from this, that the money ye use bears his image and superscription: For though this be not a mark of his having the property of all your money; yet it is a plain evidence of his said superiority, and your subjection: Therefore render unto Caesar whatsoever is incumbent upon subjects, and particularly tribute; as unto all this he has a lawful right. But,

(3.) Abstracting from the connection, these words [Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s] can mean nothing at all; if they mean not that Caesar had a civil right, that there were things thus belonging unto him. And moreover, to deny this would not only be the utmost violence upon these words; but would also force a meaning upon the next words, grossly erroneous, which could not be ascribed unto our Lord without blasphemy. For, if Caesar’s right be undetermined here, then God’s right is undetermined in the following words, viz. And unto God the things which be God’s. If there be ambiguity in any of these clauses, there must be in both; for both God’ s right and Caesar’s are in the same terms asserted: And this is, of itself, a sufficient argument against interpreting our Lord’s words as equivocal, which some have done; that thereby he is brought in as shifting and calling in question the prerogatives of his Father, before that generation, which stood in peculiar need of quite other doctrine.

Thus, that our Lord enjoined subjection by individuals unto Caesar, particularly in paying tribute, has been cleared: Yea, in doing so, he proceeds upon no other or better qualification in Caesar, than that he was actually and allowedly in power over the Jewish nation; as appearing, particularly, by the coin of their money. And it must be granted, that the command is of equal force in all parallel cases; and that, therefore, it plainly agrees to the principle here maintained by the Presbytery.

The precepts already insisted on were given unto the Jewish people, as a special rule of duty toward civil rulers; and, as such, they were immediately handed down to Christians, in these Churches that were planted by the Apostles. But the Divine care, in providing for their establishment in this duty against all temptations, did not rest here. The Apostles of our Lord, and by his counsel, were not ignorant or forgetful of Satan ‘s devices; in improving every handle, for tempting such as he cannot detain in profanity, to turn over into some apparent purity of their own invention. And considering the extraordinary handles which that subtle adversary had, for tempting these Christians unto such an extreme, in throwing off all civil concern with such rulers as they had then ado with; the Apostles were therefore specially directed to build some new and very strong bulwarks, for defence at this quarter: And which are of standing use in all ages, against any such errors and mistakes. Thus,

Argument IV. From Rom. xiii. 1, 7.

There is another precept, very express unto the purpose in hand, which is declared Rom. xiii. 1; being also explained and confirmed downwards unto the 8th verse of that chapter: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, etc.

The present design neither requires or permits, that these verses be expounded, either wholly, or according to the order in which they ly: But it is needful briefly to lay open and vindicate the establishment they give unto the principle now asserted; so as any who will wrest them (against the express warning, 2 Pet. iii. 16, 17.) may be left inexcusable. And, for this end, there must be some separate consideration of four things; whereunto the matter of these verses is reduceable, viz. The objects of the command, the duty commanded, the objects of this duty, and the reasons whereby it is enforced.

I. The objects of the command are called, every Soul; by which expression (according to Scripture-stile, the context, and the Apostle ‘s scope) are signified human persons: Particularly all these at this time in Rome, who had embraced the Christian profession. The whole Epistle was specially directed to them: And in the 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th verses of this chapter, the Apostle expressly inculcates the duty commanded upon them; in the pronouns, Thou, thee, you, and ye.

II. The duty here commanded comprehends the whole of what men can owe, even unto any civil superiors as such. It is, in general, to be subject, (ver. 1.): particularly in rendering tribute, custom, fear, and honour, (verses 6, 7); and that not only for wrath, but also for conscience-sake, (ver. 5.), or, not only from the consideration of danger but also of duty. This is the utmost civil subjection that can be due to any: And all this is here enjoined upon every soul; particularly, upon all the Christians then living in Rome.

III. The objects of this duty are called higher powers, ver. 1. And it is certain, that this character doth properly signify, not civil offices but officers; not magistracy in the abstract, but Magistrates in the concrete: And particularly the Magistrates then existing in the Roman empire.

Toward the clear perception of this, it may be considered, that if the Apostle were speaking without any respect to the persons at that time in power through the Roman empire, and so excluding them from the proper right of Magistrates; he would then be plainly departing from other Scripture-precepts, particularly these already insisted on: He would be openly contradicting his own inspired writings, [Tit. iii. 1. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 3.]; he would be openly condemning the constant and approven tract of Scripture-examples, and particularly his own, Acts xxiv and xxv. Thus, also, he would be openly commending what is openly condemned, 2 Pet. ii. 10. Jude ver. 8. But, moreover,

1. To alledge that he speaks of magistracy in the abstract, and not of Magistrates, particularly such as then were, makes his language altogether absurd. For there is a plurality here spoken of [viz. higher powers]; and this plurality must be all of the same general nature, because it is but one and the same duty which is commanded towards them all: But it is absolutely impossible and absurd, that there should be a plurality of abstracts of the same general nature; because one abstract thing exhausts the whole nature of that thing. Though then there be many Magistrates, yet magistracy can be but one in number: And to use or explain the plural word [powers] in a civil sense, and any other way than as properly signifying persons in power, is perfectly absurd, as being inconsistent with the nature of things. Nor is it any thing less absurd, to enjoin subjection unto Magistracy in the abstract; because it has no real being in the abstract, and it is impossible to be subject unto that which really is not. In the matter of subjection, magistracy must always be considered as subsisting only in the person of Rulers; and the Romans of that time could not be subject to it, but as subsisting in the person of these Rulers who then were. Agreeably unto all this,2. It is usual in Scripture, that the abstract be put for the concrete; as there are five instances of this in one verse, 1 Cor. xii. 28. And God hath set some in the Church, miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. But, more particularly, when the plural word here translated [powers] is elsewhere used in Scripture, it always properly signifies persons in power; as Luke xii. 11. Eph. iii. 10. and vi. 12. Col. i. 16. and ii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Tit. iii. 1. The first and last of which texts are parallel, in the present case, unto this now under consideration. And,

3. To fix any other meaning upon the word here, as if the Apostle were not speaking of Magistrates, particularly such as then were; not only is inconsistent with the nature of things, contradicts parallel texts of Scripture, and renders Scripture- language of an unfixed sense: But it represents the Apostle as writing needlessly, and under a sinful and dangerous mistake; contrary to the infallible conduct of the Holy Spirit he was under. It is essential to all the books of Scripture, that every part of them was needful, with respect to the duty and interest of men; at that very time when they were first wrote, as well as in after ages: while it would be an impeachment of God to alledge, that he ever made any revelation which was of no use in the time when it was made. But as the passage of Scripture now insisted upon belongs to the rule of manners, what need of it could the Romans then living stand in; if it was not to be applied unto themselves, with reference to the rulers then in being? What manner of use could they, in this case, have for it? How needless behoved to be the Apostle ‘s labour, in giving a rule of manners, with reasonings and expostulations thereanent, unto persons who had no interest in it; no warrant, no access to meddle with it? Yea, his mistake in doing so behoved to be sinful and dangerous: Because if it was unlawful for that people to apply what he wrote unto their own case, the manner of his writing was calculated for leaving them unto, and leading them into sin. For, while he presseth and reasons with them anent the duty of subjection to higher power; he nowhere gives them the least hint, that they ought not thus to apply his words: He says nothing to prevent their doing so. Yea, as appears from what has been advanced, it was impossible for them to receive his Epistle as canonical, without making such application: Nor was it otherways possible for them to understand what is here written. For,

4. In this passage, the Apostle puts it beyond all doubt, that, when mentioning higher powers, he properly means persons in power; particularly these whom the Romans had then ado with: So that his words do openly reject any other sense. For, when giving a reason of subjection to these same higher powers, he calls them RULERS, (ver. 3.), and God’s MINISTERS, (ver. 6.): And, speaking individually of the power, he calls him the MINISTER of God; He that beareth not the sword in vain, a REVENGER to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, (ver. 4.). There can nothing be plainer than this; and it is as plain, that he speaks immediately of the rulers who then were. For (ver. 1.) he calls them powers THAT BE (ousai a word denoting real and present existence); Powers that ARE ordained: And, all along, he speaks of the powers and power in the present time; as persons then actually in office. Accordingly, he inculcates subjection in its several parts; as the duty of these very Christians then in Rome, and as a present duty: While (ver. 6, 7.) he says unto them, Pay YOU tribute, Render tribute, Custom, Fear, Honour. And that Paul should enjoin, or they undertake the present performance of such things, except toward present rulers, is altogether absurd and inconceivable.

And now, that the Spirit of God, by Paul, did here enjoin civil subjection in its full latitude and all its parts, upon the Christians then in Rome, toward rulers then in the Roman empire, is so certain and manifest, that it must be astonishing if any doubt were entertained anent it.

IV. The reasons of this duty, which are here improven, come next to be considered. And these are generally two: The first whereof lies in the original institution of Civil Magistrates, (ver. 1, 2.); and the second in their duty and administration, (ver. 3, 4, 6.).

And it must be first observed, that to refuse any thing already proven (particularly the precept of subjection, ver. 1, 5, 7.), as having an immediate respect unto Magistrates in the concrete, and these in the Roman empire, upon pretence of any insuperable difficulty in applying unto them what is asserted in the Reasons of Subjection now before us; not only implies an heavy reflection upon the Apostle, as writing falsehood or no way to the purpose: But, it is a plain and open abuse of these very reasons. For it is essential unto the nature of reasons, that they suppose it to be already concluded upon, what the thing is for which they are advanced; otherways they are advanced for nothing, or we know not for what, and so are no reasons at all, can have no light in them, nor cast light upon any thing. Thus, in the present case, before the reasons of the command be noticed, it must first be determined who are the objects of the command, what is the duty commanded, and who are the objects of that duty. The reasons must suppose these things to be already determined; and, therefore, can give no help in determining them: And when the determination is once made, no objection can be brought from the reasons against it; because, in the nature of the thing, it must be the standard for trying the reasons, and not they for trying it, but only for illustrating and confirming it. The sense, then, of these reasons [ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.], must be regulated by the things already proven: And to proceed otherways, is to wrest these dictates of the Holy Ghost, to cast the whole matter loose; and most unreasonably deny Scripture that common justice which all language requires. Moreover, it is certain, that civil subjection, in its full latitude and all its parts, is here enjoined upon the Christians then in Rome, toward rulers then in the Roman empire; and this has been so far manifested, that there is no room left, in any event, for coming back upon it. If, therefore, there should seem any insuperable difficulty in applying unto such Magistrates the characters here given of the higher powers; nothing remains unto one, who would deal reverently with the oracles of God, but to believe the certain evidence that these indeed are the persons meant, and to rest in an humble confession of ignorance as to how they come to be so spoken of. However, that in these reasons the Apostle doth no way contradict or darken the command of subjection, as respecting these Roman powers, by advancing any thing which was not applicable unto them; is sufficiently plain. For,

1mo, The first reason of subjection lies in the original institution of Civil Magistrates, (as expressed ver. 1.); For there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. Here then it is asserted, That the powers that BE (viz. the rulers presently in the Roman empire) are ordained of God. Yea, it is farther asserted, That there is NO power (viz. no Civil Magistrate) but of God, viz. in a way of ordination. Now this says not, that men who are of a superior place in civil society by bare possession or mere force, are, as such, ordained of God: For these are not powers in a moral sense, and the text speaks only of all that are so; or of all those who are in the possession and exercise of magistracy by the will and consent of civil society, as these only do properly fall under the denomination of Magistrates.

Such, yea all such, are here said to be ordained of God. And they are so, not merely in respect of providential dispensation; but also of preceptive institution. For the remainder of natural light, in the moral dictates of right reason, is the natural and eternal law of God: Now this divine law not only endues men, in their present estate, with a natural inclination to Civil Society and Government; but it prescribes unto them an indispensible necessity of erecting and maintaining the same in some form, as a moral duty, the obligation and benefit whereof no wickedness in them can loose or forfeit. And therefore, wherever they voluntarily constitute or consent unto any form of Civil Government, under the rule of any particular persons, whatever sin be in the circumstances of this their deed, with respect to the Government or Governors which they constitute or consent unto; yet the deed itself, or the substance of the deed, is always in consequence of, and agreeable to God’s law: Wherefore their Governors, as such and in the substance of the matter, are ordained of God according to that law.

And this is that divine ordination which the Apostle ascribes to all Magistrates as such; and, particularly, unto these of his day in the Roman empire: While, whatever distinguishing qualifications or approbation God may bestow upon some; yet no Civil Magistrates in the world can have any other sort of divine ordination. And, as this did belong unto these Roman Magistrates, justly therefore does the Apostle argue, with application to them (ver. 2.); That whosoever resisteth the power (viz. the Civil Magistrate, as such) resisteth the ordinance of God: And they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation; or be condemned on this account.

2do, The second reason of subjection lies in the duty and administration of Civil Magistrates (as expressed, vers. 3, 4, 6.); For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God unto thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. For they are God’ s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Now, for laying open the force of this reason, and obviating any seeming difficulty, in applying the things here said unto Magistrates, particularly such as ruled among the Romans in Paul’s day; the following considerations may suffice.

1. The public good of outward and common order in all reasonable society, unto the glory of God, is the great and only end which these invested with Magistracy can propose; in a sole respect unto that office. And as, in prosecuting this end civilly, according to their office, it is only over mens good and evil works that they can have any inspection; so, it is only over these which they must needs take cognizance of, for the said public good: While, at the same time, their doing so must be in such a manner, and proceed so far allenarly, as is requisite for that end; without assuming any Lordship immediately over mens consciences, or making any encroachment upon the special privileges and business of the Church. And moreover, as the whole institution and end of their office are cut out by, and lie within the compass of natural principles; it were absurd to suppose, that there could or ought to be any exercise thereof towards its end, in the foresaid circumstances, but what can be argued for and defended from natural principles: as indeed there is nothing especially allotted and allowed unto Magistrates, by the word of God and the confessions of the reformed Churches, but what can be so. Now, it must be agreeably to all THIS, that the Apostle signifies Magistrates to be God’s Ministers for good; concerning themselves with good and evil works, in a way of terror, praise, or revenge: For he does so in a sole respect unto their civil office.

2. What the apostle thus ascribes unto Magistrates, is in some measure competent unto all such, in every nation or state; and it always was so, particularly unto these in the Roman Empire of whom he immediately speaks; as may be seen, Acts xxv. 16. True indeed, the advantage in this case lies very far on the side of such as have occasion to exercise their office for promoting the Church's public good; while at the same time they are privileged with (and endeavour to discharge their other special business as well as this, according to) the full discovery which God’s word hath made, of these natural principles that comprehend the due exercise of their office, as well as its institution and end. However, as all Magistrates have still enjoyed some discovery of these, in the dictates of reason; and as they have always had occasion, and been obliged to improve the same, for the good of civil and natural society, in what the Apostle here describes: So there never were, nor could be any Magistrates or persons in civil power by the will of their people, but in whose administration something of this took place; in so much as thereby God has been pleased to preserve some external order and equity in the world, and to restrain mankind from becoming altogether as the fishes of the sea, the greater devouring the less. And this was now the case, with reference to these Roman Magistrates whom the Apostle has particularly in his eye.

3. The Apostle is here speaking of these rulers allenarly as such; abstracting from every other view of them, either good or bad. For every thing he says of them was truly and only verified, in their civil office and administration. Thus he says not a word, nor any way enters into the question, anent their personal characters or qualifications, moral or religious; though undoubtedly there was, at least, much evil about them in this respect. Again, he takes no manner of notice anent their being chargeable with any Mal-administrations; either in a way of omission or commission: Though yet it was certain that there never were nor could be any Magistrates, either wholly or near wholly free of these; and without having much or any thing in their administration, besides what precisely answers the fair character he now gives of them therein. It is evident, then, that the Apostle, without refusing that there were many other, and many contrary things to be said anent them, speaks of them allenarly as rulers; or as in the lawful possession of ruling power, and in so far as truly exercising the same. In a word, though there were many things different, odious and opposite to be seen about them; yet he does not pursue his present consideration of them any farther than as they were truly wearing, and found walking within the proper compass and limits of magistracy. Their practice did not always answer these things; their actual attendance thereunto was far from being continual: But these things were true, and always true of them, considered in the lawful possession of, and so far as truly exercising civil power; their attendance, in this respect, was continually unto these very things, because altogether confined thereunto. And now the Apostle was, at this time, directed by the Spirit of God to represent Magistrates purely in the above shape; and that for very good reasons and wise purposes, viz.

(1.) His proper scope toward the Romans here, was to inculcate upon them the duty of subjection unto Magistrates; and this could not lead him out to consider such any other way, than precisely as such.

(2.) For satisfying the Romans anent the reasonableness and necessity of subjection unto Magistrates, nothing could be more serviceable than the description he now gave of them; while it manifests how wholesome, valuable and necessary are the purposes of their institution and true administration; wherewith alone subjection properly concurs: And his confining himself, at present, unto this description, was a very fit mean for getting a due regard unto their office, and unto them in their true possession and exercise thereof, so rivetted upon the minds of these Romans; as it might not be extinguished by, but over-balance any temptation they could be under, to refuse them due obedience, on account of what gross evils they were otherways chargeable with.

(3.) It is evident that while the Apostle discourses, in the present case, about Magistrates purely as such, without noticing any thing good or bad anent their private character and qualifications, moral or religious; or anent their Mal- administrations: his design was to let the Romans see, that however deep a concern they otherways had with them, in these personal respects; yet, in the case of subjection unto their lawful commands, they were to abstract from all consideration of them except as such, or as truly possessing and exercising civil power; confining themselves unto this view of them allenarly.

(4.) At the same time the manner of the Apostle ‘s argument was calculated for discovering unto the Romans the whole cases wherein they had any concern with Magistrates by way of subjection, viz. in so far only as they answer the characters here given: And it was farther calculated, for cautioning the Romans against carrying subjection the length of any sinful compliance with them. For as, in the matter of subjection, the Romans had ado only with the true concerns of their public office: So whatever personal evils they were chargeable with, whether in their private character or conduct, or in their Mal-administrations (as the evils thereof cannot cleave unto their office but their persons); all these they were to oppose, contend and testify against; according to their callings, knowledge and access. And the Apostle not only leaves room for all this, but implicitely holds out the necessity thereof; while he prescribes and admits of no compliance with them, save in the cases expressed.

And now it is altogether evident that, in the reasons of subjection (vers. 1. 4. 6.) the Apostle is so far from contradicting or darkening the command of subjection unto the higher powers (vers. 1. 5. 7.), as immediately respecting the Roman powers or Magistrates of his day, by advancing any thing that was not applicable to them; that on the contrary, by these reasons and what is advanced therein, he notably explains, illustrates and establishes that command, in reference to these powers: So as he could not have discoursed thereanent in any shape more suitable and pat to the purpose.

Moreover when the Apostle charged and persuaded the Christians in Rome to subject themselves unto the Roman Magistrates; he thereby obliged them to conclude, not only that all other Christians and people in the Roman Empire were bound unto the same thing; but also, that whatever Magistrates any civil state acknowledged were to be thus subjected unto throughout the same. For the Roman Magistrates could have no title in this case, but what was common unto all these in their several dominions; nor any better title, in respect to Christians than others: and so the reasons, whereby the Apostle urgeth subjection to the Roman Magistrates, were as pleadable, unto the same extent, in the case of all these other; as indeed he signifies by the general assertion, There is no power but of God. Accordingly, when the rule of duty that has been insisted on was specially directed unto all the Christians in Rome; it was also (in the general nature and essential design of Holy Scripture) given forth as a rule of duty unto all Christians in the world: Plainly teaching that all men, but they especially, ought to be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake, unto all Magistrates presently acknowledged by the civil state they belong to; and that in every lawful administration: As, at the same time, they are bound to contend and testify against all the corruptions and evils, private or public, wherewith any of these Magistrates are chargeable; and that according to their callings, knowledge and access. Now this is all and no more than what the Presbytery affirms, with respect to the present Civil Government; as plainly taught in this passage of the Epistle to the Romans.

Argument V. From Tit. iii. 1.

The fifth precept that shall be improven for the establishment of this principle, is expressed Tit. iii. 1. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey Magistrates; to be ready to every good work.

It is quite undeniable that, in these words, the Apostle strictly charges Titus to inculcate or press upon the Christians then in Crete, the duty of universal subjection and obedience, only in matters lawful, unto Magistrates who then were in the Roman empire.

1. They, upon whom he is charged to inculcate the duty of subjection and obedience, were the Christians then in Crete; for it was among them that Titus laboured in the work of the gospel, and them only could he now put in mind.

2. He is charged to press upon them the duty of universal subjection and obedience, only in lawful matters; for this is plainly the amount of being subject and obeying, in a way of readiness unto every good work: Which is a thing quite different from, and opposite unto any sinful compliances.

3. He is charged to inculcate upon them the duty of such subjection and obedience, unto Magistrates who then were in the Roman empire. For it is expressly Magistrates, whom the Apostle points out as the objects of this duty: And it must be these also whom he calls principalities and powers, see (beside some reasons advanced to this purpose on Rom. xiii. 1.), it is self-evident, that the civil subjection and obedience here intended, being actually the same, cannot have different objects. Again, it is not so much as supposable that, at this time, either Paul should intend, or Titus press, or they should practice subjection and obedience, unto any Magistrates, but such as then were: And, as these Cretians belonged to the Roman empire; the Magistrates in that empire, then being, must needs be specially respected in the charge here given to Titus.

How deep a concern the Apostle entertained and recommends to Titus, anent the up-stirring of these Christians unto subjection and obedience, in matters lawful, to the foresaid Magistrates, is evident at the first reading of this text: And as the same runs parallel unto, and confirms the whole interpretation of the other passage [Rom. xiii. 1. etc.]; so, for such reasons as are thereupon advanced, it must be understood as equally applicable unto all people, with reference to whatever Magistrates are over them, by consent of the Civil State they belong to. Upon the whole, it is undeniable, that Paul here charges Titus to teach and preach that very same principle, which this Presbytery maintain with reference to the present Civil Government.

Argument VI. From 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17.

The last Precept that shall be argued from to this purpose, is exhibited by the Apostle Peter. As he takes notice (2 Epist. iii. 16.) that, in Paul’s Epistles, there are some things hard to be understood; which they that are unlearned, and unstable, wrest: So he takes care to prevent this, particularly in respect of the passages that have been considered; while he gives notable explication and confirmation thereunto, by what is expressed 1 Epist. ii. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

What is spoken in these verses, to the present case, hath been mostly met with already; all that needs to be said farther,

shall be comprehended in the remarks following.

1. That the Apostle is here speaking immediately of persons in power, particularly such as then were, or could then be submitted unto; cannot be refused, without an open contradiction unto and contempt of holy Scripture.

2. He gives an infallible, and the only habile mark, whereby to know what persons in power were ordained of God; while he teaches (ver. 13.) That all those who are the ordinance of man, or who have a constitution by the consent of civil society, are to be submitted unto for the Lord’s sake, or, as having an institution from him.

3. What is to be understood [Rom. xiii. 1. and Tit. iii. 1.] is here expressed, viz. a distinction of these persons in power, or Magistrates, into supreme and subordinate, ver. 13, 14. The King is supreme (a word of the same derivation and meaning with Sovereign, as they can differ only in sound and grammatical construction, both signifying, in this case, the Chief Civil Magistrate); while Governors are sent by him, and so subordinate unto him.

4. He determines the whole matter in respect of which they were to be submitted unto, viz. The punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, ver. 14. However seldom they were inclined or employed this way, yet the supreme power of the King, and the commission of Governors, could morally extend no farther: And thus it was only in so far as employed this way, that the King was to be considered as supreme and Governors as sent by him; and both submitted to accordingly.

5. The Apostle plainly supposes [ver. 15.], that Christians were then charged with non-submission to the King and Governors; though but ignorantly by foolish men, probably because they refused sinful compliances: He therefore informs them of the will of God, That, notwithstanding their Christian freedom, they should put these persons to silence; by outshining them in submission as to well-doing. And he gives a notable enforcement unto this duty, by telling [ver. 16.], That in neglecting the same (on however specious pretences), they would not be using their Christian liberty as the servants of God, but for a cloak of maliciousness; or, to palliate some venom of their own spirits.

6. He orders them to yield such submission, without farther question, to every ordinance of man; every person in civil office by the will of society. And,

7. That he might prevent their scrupling to do so, on account of the unworthiness or wickedness of any of these persons; he teaches, That submission to them in well-doing, or in matters lawful, should be studied for the Lord’s sake. If they were to look no higher than the persons of these men, their hearts might readily become quite alienated from any actual connection with them: But it was necessary they should look up unto, and reverence God’ s institution in the office these persons bore; and his sovereign will in chusing to make any use of them, for maintaining any thing of public order that was to be found in the world. And thus, being weaned from their own spirits, and walking in self-denial, they behoved to cherish any thing just in the Civil Administration; by submitting thereunto, from the powerful consideration of their being obtested to do this much for the Lord’s sake: Yea to do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; while this can no way interfere with a due Testimony against prevailing evils, or with due endeavours for reformation.

Finally, What the Apostle here said unto the Christians of his day, doth equally agree unto the case of all; with respect to whatever Magistrates are sustained by the civil body whereof they are members: And this is all that the Presbytery affirms in the present case.

And now it fully appears, what is the harmonious and indubitable verdict of Scripture-precepts, upon the question in debate, viz. That all persons, and particularly the Lord’s people, ought to render subjection and obedience in all matters lawful, unto any Magistrate who is, and while he is acknowledged as such by the Civil State they belong to; being what is every way consistent, yea connected with due faithfulness, in reference to these corruptions wherewith the Magistrates may be chargeable.

The clearest evidence hath been given, that this duty (which was, upon the matter, originally taught by the fifth Commandment), was also, by some precepts branched out therefrom, expressly inculcated upon the Jewish people from one generation to another; and even after they were incorporated with the Roman State: Yea moreover, that besides the continued doctrine of these precepts, the Holy Ghost has been more especially at pains by some others, for preventing any transgression, neglect or forgetfulness of this duty among Christians. And as that principle which the Presbytery here asserts, consisteth merely in a particular maintenance of this duty; it is sufficiently manifest, that the said principle only maintains a duty which is expressly taught by Scripture-precepts: Yea, that singular care has been, all along, taken in Scripture, for keeping this principle alive, in the faith and practice of the Lord’s people.

Argument VII. From the Conformity of the Precepts insisted on, with other Scriptures.

After all, it is affecting and astonishing, to see any opposition made unto such an open and special design of the Holy Ghost in Scripture; and that under a profession of regard to these holy oracles. The precepts which have been insisted upon speak so expressly, so certainly, so loudly, according to the interpretation that has been given of them, plainly remonstrating against any other; that there is no manner of room left for hesitating thereanent, even though a person should remain difficulted, in apprehending the consistency thereof with any other passages of Scripture.

I. In the first place, there is no passage of Scripture that so much as seems openly inconsistent with these precepts, as now interpreted; while no passage so much as seems openly to forbid what is here expressly commanded, or to command any thing directly opposite thereunto. And it must be a very intolerable abuse of Scripture, to attempt warding off the notable light and force of these precepts, by passages that do not so much as seem directly opposite or contradictory; while, even though they did so, they ought to be explained in an agreeableness to such direct and indubitable precepts. But,

But so it is, that no necessity hereof can occur; unless a person will procure it unto himself. For,

II. In the next place, as there are many other passages of Scripture plainly homologating these precepts, in the genuine sense that has been assigned them; so there are none which it is not very obvious, that accordingly they are noways inconsistent with. If there were any, they behoved to ly, either among approven examples, or doctrines, or precepts, or promises, or threatenings; some way related to the general subject in hand: But none such can there be found. For,

1. There are no approven examples, in the conduct of civil members towards Magistrates, whereof these precepts, as now stated, offer to disapprove.

2. Again, there are doctrines and precepts, expressly or implicitly determining the duty of a Civil State, as to what sort of Magistrates they should set up and seek after; and there are some imitable examples recorded, of faithfulness and reformation this way: All which doctrines, precepts and examples are here uncontroverted; in full agreeableness to what has been affirmed. And it is very obvious, that the above precepts, in their foresaid genuine sense, are noways inconsistent therewith. For, as these precepts do plainly enjoin different duties upon different objects; teaching us separately to yield separate obedience, only in matters lawful, to whatever Magistrates the Civil State actually sustains; so whatever defects in or defections from their duty foresaid, the State be otherways chargeable with, it is plain such obedience only homologates that part of their said duty which they perform: While we are, at the same time, left indispensibly bound and evidently free to exert ourselves, by all habile means, in testifying against these their evils; and for getting them convinced of, and reconciled unto the whole extent of their duty, in this matter.

In the next place, there are doctrines and precepts, expressly or implicitly determining the qualifications and duties of Magistrates, as to what they should be and do; and there are some imitable examples recorded, of singular attainments this way: All which doctrines, precepts and examples are here also uncontroverted; in full agreeableness to what has been affirmed. And it is also very obvious, that the above precepts, in their foresaid genuine sense, are noways inconsistent therewith. For,

(1.) As these precepts do plainly speak to different persons, and anent different things; so, on the one hand, the passages holding forth these qualifications and duties of Magistrates do not, by the remotest hint, imply, That if any way they be deficient in or make defection from the same, their authority and commands, even in matters lawful, must not be subjected unto and obeyed: And, on the other hand, these precepts holding forth the duties of subjects, as above-stated, do never, by the remotest consequence, imply any dispensing with those qualifications and duties of Magistrates, or any countenancing of their defects and defections; but, on the contrary, they leave us bound and in full room, to testify against the same, and essay their reformation, by all methods that are habile for us. As,

(2.) Magistrates are here always supposed to be in the actual and due possession of these needful and natural abilities, which are common among men. Again, they are here always supposed to be actually possessing and performing these moral and acquired qualifications which they ought to have, and these duties which are incumbent upon them; at least, in some useful and continued degree: For all this is always in Scripture, and by all people, implied in the essential notion of Magistrates.

Therefore it is only in respect of the DUE Measure and Performance of these qualifications and duties, that Magistrates can be understood as at any time chargeable with defects or defections. Now this is indeed such, as without having attained and engaging unto the same, at least in some hopeful and promising way, no Civil State ought to invest any with magistracy. But then, SUCH a Measure and Performance of these qualifications and duties cannot be required for the BEING of the Magistrate ‘s office; either as essential to it, or as a condition of it sine qua non. First, it cannot be required as essential thereunto: For then it would be the same thing with magistracy, which is grossly absurd and big with absurdities. In the next place, it cannot be required as a condition thereof sine qua non; or without which one is not really a Magistrate, however far sustained as such by civil society: For then no person could be really a Magistrate, unless he were so faultlessly. And this is a proposition (which Mr Nairn’ s scheme necessarily lands in, if it come to any thing at all, and) which is so very dangerous, that it opens a door for throwing off all relative duties, toward any that are not faultless in their relative capacity. By this way of reasoning, it will follow, that servants are not to obey their masters, while undutiful: Though yet the Spirit of God says (1 Pet. ii. 18.), Servants be subject to your masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

It is manifest, therefore, that the due measure and performance of scriptural qualifications and duties, belongs not to the being and validity of the Magistrate ‘s office; but to the WELL-BEING and Usefulness thereof. But an acknowledgment of the Magistrate ‘s authority in lawful commands, doth only homologate the being and validity of his office, while sustained by the State: Wherefore this acknowledgment can never be inconsistent with the necessity of these qualifications and duties; can never palliate any defects in or defections from the same; and can never encroach upon the necessity or due extent of testifying against these defects or defections, and of essaying the reformation of Magistrates in our several places and callings.

3. Farther, there are, in Scripture, several promises of good, reformed, reforming Magistrates; and of deliverance to the Lord’s people from any grievance they presently ly under, in the want thereof: But these promises can never belong to the rule of duty. A promise of the greatest future good, can be no warrant for spurning at the least present good: Yea, the cherishing any good which is presently bestowed, is the ready way of attaining all the good that is promised. Wherefore no promise anent Magistrates to come, can possibly interfere with the duty of subjecting to any thing lawful in the administration of Magistrates that presently are.

4. Finally, there are threatenings and curses pronounced against wicked Magistrates; and people concurring with them in their wickedness: But it is dreadful to suppose, that these are any way inconsistent with the duty toward Magistrates now pled for; as if God’s indignation against

sinners, did dissolve the obligation of relative duties betwixt them.

According to the observations that have been made, it will appear, that no passage of Scripture doth in the remotest manner militate against the cause now managed. And now it is abundantly manifest, That the principle which the Presbytery holds anent the present Civil Government, doth only maintain a duty that is expressly taught by Scripture-precepts.

Online Commentaries

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:26:00 +0000

If you're looking for online Bible commentaries, you probably won't come across a bigger or better collection than the following which has gathered up Reformation and Puritan works amongst others.

https://reformedbooksonline.com/commentaries/reformation-puritan-bible-commentaries/

Some rare volumes such as William Alleine's The Mystery of the Temple and City Described in the Nine Last Chapters of Ezekiel Unfolded are listed.

Also Benjamin Needler's Expository Notes, with Practical Observations, towards the opening of the Five First Chapters of the First Book of Moses.

The Westminster Divine Francis Taylor published An Exposition with Practical Observations upon the Three First Chapters of the Proverbs. Archibald Symson's Exposition upon the Second Epistle General of St. Peter is of great interest too. He was minister in Dalkeith in the early 1600s.

The Image Maker and the Image Bearer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 22:38:00 +0000

I'm sure this must have occurred to many others...

The Eternal Son of God made man in His own image. In the Son "was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). But the image was lost. The same Eternal Son took this nature, in the likeness of sinful flesh yet without sin (and therefore without the image lost) into union with His own divine person. He did so in order that the image might be restored in those united to Himself as His own people.

The image maker united the image bearing nature with His person in order to restore the image in those that had sinned but are united to Him by faith.

Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.

The Stronger than the strong man armed

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:12:00 +0000

Paraphrased notes of a sermon by an FP minister: NB this is NOT a word-for-word note.

Luke 11 v21-22. 'When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils'.

1. The strong man is Beelezebub, Satan. If Adam in a state of innocency was unable to withstand him, how can we who are far from innocent (but are also self-deceived) stand against him?

He keeps his palace. It has large rooms. He keeps it in peace: the Lord is speaking of how Satan is keeping the heart of man. Man's heart was a great building, beautiful with large windows and great prospects from them. Men have their Understanding -- that's one room of the soul. They have another room: Love - love to relations, love to country, love to a place. What a room that is: it must have been a great room when the light of God filled it. The Will of man, with which he chooses, is a great room. The other creatures don't have a will in the way that man has. Man was made in the image of God. It's a ruin now but the glories of God are still to be seen. Satan rules in this soul as his palace. He has brought darkness into the Understanding: if the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness'. The fallen heart of man is a sad sight compared to what it fell from, the unfallen heart with which he walked with God in the cool of the day.

Satan has taken away the love of God and holiness away and put in its place the love of this present evil world. Satan rules and reigns over this present evil world and in the heart. The love of ourselves is a strong force -- 'what's in it for me?'. God asks: 'If I be God, where is my honour?'. But Adam asks: 'What's in it for me?'

The will of man is the ability to choose. Naomi and Ruth and Orphah were returning to Israel along the path, they had much in common, but one of the daughters-in-law was a child of God and the other was a child of Moab still. The darkness of the prince of darkness was still in her heart. Instead of pressing on to Bethlehem - the 'house of bread' -- she bade Naomi farewell and God farewell.

Satan gains a 'lawful captive' says the Bible, because man is a willing captive. Adam and Eve willingly took the fruit. Satan's occupancy of the palace is lawful. If a person comes under the preaching of the word, Satan comes and takes away the seed of the Word. The heart remains as unbroken and unchanged as ever.

2. The Stronger than the strong man armed. This is the Lord Jesus. It's not an army of many that overcomes Satan but one man. The only begotten Son is the only one for the deliverance of a fallen world. All our hope of deliverance, light and spiritual strength are in the One Saviour. There is One name given among men whereby we must be saved. When Jesus came into the world, Satan knew this was the One. There were many battles between them. Christ was to tread the wine-press alone, ever fighting as a weak man in Gethsemane. Satan breathed some of his own spirit into men: the scribes and Pharisees who cried against Christ showed their scorn at the cross. Had the scorners had spiritual insight, they would have seen a King dying for them, the Son of God. A great battle was taking place, the greatest ever fought. What a demonstration of love in the face of hatred, of mercy in the face of cruelty. Christ cried out: 'It is finished'.

Now the Stronger takes the palace from the strong man armed and divides the spoils. Instead of being in darkness the soul is now in light, the great work of renovation begins. The day that the sinner is saved, and the Stronger puts the resident out, a renovation called sanctification begins. A true spiritual life is in the heart. The understanding is renovated like the two on the way to Emmaus. The room of love is renovated -- the sinner is made willing to give up the world. The Will has a marvellous renovation begun in it. Self-interest, self-advantage, self-will and self-righteousness are renovated so that there's will to run in the precepts of the Lord.

A word of application: we can't have Satan and Jesus dwell and reign in the one heart.

ends

--

Sent from MetroMail

Why a Masculine Hairstyle is a Must-Have for Female Political Leaders

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:41:00 +0000

"Line up the most powerful female politicians in the world - Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Christine Lagarde, Nicola Sturgeon and Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president - and you see a collection of women whose longer hair had to be ruthlessly cut as they ascended. The theme has even been noted and the style given a name: the “pob”, the political bob." This was the analysis of an article published in The Times last Thursday.

"Meanwhile first ladies, such as Samantha Cameron, Miriam Gonzalez or Michelle Obama have busy high-profile lives but are allowed long, swishy hair. For a leadership role the only conclusion is this: long hair looks feminine in a world where power still looks masculine."

The article follows it all the way back to the first female Pharaoh Hatshepsut. Her “entitlement to rule was underscored by her masculine attire”. "She even wore the same false beards that were worn by male pharaohs. This is probably a hair choice too far for most modern female politicians".

The article concludes with a quote from Charlotte Fiell, author of Hairstyles: Ancient to Present.

“Whether you like it or not, politics is still a man’s world,” says Fiell. “That makes it difficult for women. They need to be taken seriously, but if they choose a conventionally feminine hairstyle, that will look wrong. This helmet of hair is the male equivalent of the suit. It is also very controlled.”

It's also of course seen in the macho power stance beloved of Nicola Sturgeon. The last line of the article reads:

Masculinity still means seriousness? “Absolutely.”

In a perverse way this gender-reversing power play is acknowledging the truth of Scripture:
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:14:16).

We learn from this that:

- Nature teaches us that women should have long hair but that it is shameful for men to have long hair
- It is shameful for women to have short hair (shorn) as well as shaved
- If a woman has short hair she is dishonouring her head (i.e. her husband or is denying the principle of male headship)
- Long hair is given to women for their glory and for modesty.
- It is not only natural but the church should have no other practice in these mattters

Short hair on women is also a clear violation of God's law relating to maintaining the God-ordained difference between the sexes established at creation.
For more read the following post on this blog.

The mission of the local Church

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 07:59:00 +0000

What can we learn from the past about the mission of the local Church. There is an insightful and practical lecture here about how Thomas Chalmers initiated this in a very degraded, underclass area of Edinburgh in the early Victorian times. It has significant practical pointers as to what we can learn today. Much of the strategies for church extension and planting today are what Chalmers speaks against in the following quotation:

“Now the specific business which we would like to put into the hands of a Christian minister is, not that he should fill his church any how – that he may do by the superior attractiveness of his preaching, at the expense of previous congregations, and without any movement in advance on the practical heathenism of the community: But what we want is, to place his church in the middle of such a territory as we have now specified and to lay upon him a task, for the accomplishment of which we should allow him to the labour and preference of a whole lifetime; not to fill his church any how, but to fill this church out of that district. We should give him the charge over head, of one and all of its families; and tell him, that, instead of seeking hearers from without, he should so shape and regulate his movements, that, as far as possible, his church-room might all be taken up by hearers from within. It is this peculiar relation between his church, and its contiguous households, all placed within certain geographical limits, that distinguishes him from the others as a territorial minister.”
– Thomas Chalmers

What is the morality of remaining in the EU?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:36:00 +0000

During my A-levels I had to write an essay on whether membership of the European union undermined Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom. It was clear to me that time that the answer to that question was an undeniable yes. Acceptance of EEC membership and the Treaty of Rome also meant accepting that all past, present and future European legislation would supersede anything passed by the UK Parliament.

Thus a constitutional principle was sacrificed: that no one UK parliament can bind another. The fact that the executive arm of the EU is unelected removes democratic accountability. The European Courts also take precedence over UK Courts. We have given up ultimate moral control over our country, we may be able to pass laws and make decisions in courts but they can be appealed through the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and overturned. A nation must be able to govern itself according to the law of God. The basis of the God-appointed role of civil government (Romans 13) is to promote good and restrain evil (in accordance with God's law). Yet our nation has said that not God's law but European law is supreme.

These are simple facts however anyone wishes to spin them. They can say that we have traded sovereignty for something else but we have certainly given it away. Only recently, however, I came to see that this is not merely a political point and a matter of civil liberties but a moral question.

Our relationship with Europe has no moral basis. It is based on an oath but an oath must be true, just and righteous (Jeremiah 4:2).It must be an oath that is true and must commit us only to things that are just and righteous. It is altogether wrong for individuals to make an oath that commits them to implicit, unquestioned and automatic obedience whether the matter is right or wrong. If we are giving our word to submit to any future European legislation then this must potentially include things that will be morally wrong - it is therefore swearing falsely. If we are swearing with a mental reservation and intention that we will not keep our word if it does in the future commit us to anything morally wrong - we are also swearing falsely.

It is only acceptable to make an oath concerning something that we are able to perform and we know to be morally right to perform. When Herod made an oath to give his step-daughter anything she wanted it was not a morally acceptable oath. He ought not to have kept it when it was clear that it committed him to that which was morally wrong but he certainly also ought never to have made the oath in the first place (Matthew 14:7). [I am indebted to an address "Should We Be A Member Of The European Union? - A Biblical Assessment" by Rev. David Silversides for crystallising some of these points].

We do not have a legal basis or guaranteed opt out for picking and choosing European law if it proves to be morally wrong in the future. The time has come to release ourselves legally from an oath that has no moral basis by voting to leave the EU. It is one of the many threats to the moral security of our nation. Release from this dangerous oath will not solve our moral problems, nor will it guarantee our moral security. But in a straight choice between whether our nation ought to be ensnared in a morally false oath or not, our moral duty is clear. Vote Leave.

This island built by nature for herself against infection

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:06:00 +0000

The following is quoted from Adrian Hilton's book The Principality and Power of Europe.

These are the words with which the book concludes.

The shift towards European Government has gone so far that failure to insist upon renegotiation or preparation to withdraw undermines the very principles that the Conservative Party exists to promote — the national interest and the self-governance of the British people. Just as Churchill called the nation to prayer on the eve of the Battle of Britain, the current threat from the Continent is no less worthy of constant prayer, and the call is just as urgent. It is a righteous government which will restore British sovereignty, pursue righteous laws and maintain the Constitution of liberty which has served Britain for centuries and by which the Gospel has been freely proclaimed. Britain can be restored to her sovereign greatness, and the Word of God clearly states that 'Righteousness exalteth a nation' (Proverbs 13:34).

Britain has developed a remarkable political system and an enviable Constitution, and has the unique record of not being invaded by a foreign power for 1000 years. Its tried, tested and trusted institutions have provided stable and responsible government for centuries, reinforcing the view of this 'island built by nature for herself against infection and the hand of war.' Having many times been victorious against the overt hand of war, it is surely now time to guard against the subtleties of infection.

6 ways to know if you love yourself more than God

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:42:00 +0000

The following passage on self-denial is by Richard Baxter
You hear ministers tell you of the odiousness and danger and sad effects of sin; but of all the sins that you ever heard of, there is scarce any more odious and dangerous than selfishness, and yet I doubt there are many that never were much troubled at it, nor sensible of its malignity. My principal request therefore to you is, that as ever you would prove Christians indeed, and be saved from sin and the damnation which follows it, take heed of this deadly sin of selfishness, and be sure you are possessed with true self-denial; and if you have, see that you use and live upon it.

And for your help herein, I shall tell you how your self-denial must be tried. I shall only tell you in a few words, how the least measure of true self-denial may be known. And in one word that is thus: Wherever the interest of carnal self is stronger and more predominant habitually than the interest of God, of Christ, of everlasting life, there is no true self-denial or saving grace; but where God’s interest is strongest, there self-denial is sincere. If you further ask me how this may be known, briefly thus:

1. What is it that you live for? What is that good which your mind is principally set to obtain? And what is that end which you principally design and endeavor to obtain, and which you set your heart on, and lay out your hopes upon? Is it the pleasing and glorifying of God, and the everlasting fruition of Him? Or is it the pleasing of your fleshly mind in the fruition of any inferior thing? Know this, and you may know whether self or God have the greatest interest in you. For that is your God which you love most, and please best, and would do most for.

2. Which do you set most by, the means of your salvation and of the glory of God, or the means of providing for self and flesh? Do you set more by Christ and holiness, which are the way to God; or by riches, honor, and pleasures, which gratify the flesh? Know this, and you may know whether you have true self-denial.

3. If you are truly self-denying, you are ordinarily ruled by God, and His Word and Spirit, and not by the carnal self. Which is the rule and master of your lives? Whose word and will is it ordinarily that prevails? When God draws, and self draws, which do you follow in the tenor of your life? Know this, and you may know whether you have true self-denial.

4. If you have true self-denial, the drift of your lives is carried on in a successful opposition to your carnal self, so that you not only refuse to be ruled by it, and love it as your god, but you fight against it, and tread it down as your enemy. So that you go armed against self in the course of your lives, and are striving against self in every duty; and as others think, it then goes best with them, when self is highest and pleased best; so you will know that then it goes best with you, when self is lowest, and most effectually subdued.

5. If you have true self-denial, there is nothing in this world so dear to you, but on deliberation you would leave it for God. He that has anything which he loves so well that he cannot spare it for God, is a selfish and unsanctified wretch. And therefore God has still put men to it, in the trial of their sincerity, to part with that which was dearest to the flesh. Abraham must be tried by parting with his only son. And Christ makes it His standing rule, “He who forsakes not all that he has, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33).

Yet it is true that flesh and blood may make much resistance in a gracious heart; and many a striving thought there may be, before with Abraham we part with a son, or before we can part with wealth or life; but yet on deliberation, self-denial will prevail, and there is nothing so dear to a gracious soul, which he cannot spare at the will of God, and the hope of everlasting life. If with Peter we would flinch in a temptation–we should return with Peter in weeping bitterly, and give Christ those lives that in a temptation we denied Him.

6. In a word, true self-denial is procured by the knowledge and love of God, advancing Him in the soul–to debasing of self. The illuminated soul is so much taken with the glory and goodness of the Lord, that it carries him out of himself to God, and as it were estranges him from himself, that he may have communion with God; and this makes him vile in his own eyes, and to abhor himself in dust and ashes; he is lost in himself, and seeking God, he finds himself again in God. It is not a stoical resolution, but the love of God and the hopes of glory, that make him throw away the world, and look contemptuously on all below, so far as they are mere provision for flesh.

Search now, and try your hearts by these evidences, whether you are possessed of this necessary grace of self-denial. O make not light of the matter! For I must tell you that self is the most treacherous enemy, and the most insinuating deceiver in the world. It will be within you when you are not aware of it and will conquer you when you perceive not yourselves much troubled with it; and of all other vices is both the hardest to find out and the hardest to cure. Be sure therefore in the first place, that you have self-denial; and then be sure you use it and live in the practice of it.

The Goal of a United States of Europe

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:54:00 +0000

The following is quoted from Adrian Hilton's book The Principality and Power of Europe.

It refers to the overweening claims of the EU and the imperative for a federal Europe.

It is noteworthy that politicians and journalists always use the term 'Europe' when they mean the EU. Europe is changing its meaning to include EU members only, producing such illogical phrases as 'European trade with Eastern Europe'. Europe is a continent of over 50 nations ... but anything that disagrees with EU policy, or is not intrinsic to it, becomes un-European. Romano Prodi overtly aims for a Leninist 'new kind of global governance', asserting that 'Brussels is all of us.' The vision is that this EU will ultimately speak with one voice - one representative - in international financial institutions or United Nations agencies, or as a previous advocate of European integration put it: 'Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer'...There is no doubt that the vision of a united Europe has inspired and continues to inspire politicians, Popes, and peacemakers of all backgrounds and persuasions. Since a mere free-trade area has failed to inspire anyone, the drive is once again towards a community of nations which will win the hearts and minds of the people, with talk of increased prosperity, dynamic success, secure peace and greater social justice.

Building the EU on the shifting sands of deceit

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Jun 2016 22:44:00 +0000

The following is quoted from Adrian Hilton's book The Principality and Power of Europe.

It illustrates the key question at stake in the forthcoming referendum. We have sacrificed sovereignty, freedom and real democracy by entering the EEC/EU.

The assurance given to both the British people and to Parliament in 1973 by the then prime minister, Edward Heath, was that there was 'no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty.' In other words, Britain was to be part of a community of sovereign nations who wished to trade with each other. Over and over again, that was the message that was hammered home to the electorate. Heath further gave the assurance: 'There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty... These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified...' The truth is that much more was surrendered than the electorate was led to believe. The European Court of Justice states: 'Every national court must apply Community law in

its entirety and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior to or subsequent to the Community rule.'

It is now generally accepted by British judges that European law takes precedence over Acts of Parliament. Parliament has, therefore, surrendered its sovereignty. Where there is any disagreement about Britain's actions, it is the European Court of Justice that decides what is right. The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, stated' No longer is European law an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England. It is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses, to the dismay of us all.'

The Lord Chancellor wrote to Heath on 14th December 1960 in response to Heath's enquiry into the constitutional implications of becoming a signatory to the Treaty of Rome. He stated: 'To satisfy the requirements of the treaty, Parliament could enact legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by...the Community. This would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have ever experienced... It is clear...that the (European) Council of Ministers could eventually...make regulations that would be binding on us even against our wishes... It is the first step on the road that leads...to the fully federal state.' As the most senior legal officer in the land, he went on to warn: 'I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones...these objections ought to be brought out into the open...' To have been warned of this, and then to continue with the assertion that there would be no loss of sovereignty, is blatant proof of Heath's duplicity.

One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. 'Fused' is the word he used in a communication dated 30th April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty.

Brexit and it's spiritual dimension

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 23:28:00 +0000

...we are sure that every faithful Protestant who has a desire for the advancement of Christ's cause, and for the spiritual and social welfare of our fellow countrymen, would desire to see Britain free from the limitations on our national sovereignty imposed by the Treaty of Rome – the founding document of the EU – along with the subsequent plethora of treaties and much unnecessary European legislation. Furthermore, we believe, as a matter of biblical principle, that Protestant nations ought not to enter into political union with Romanist nations (Jos 23:3-10)

Should we care about politics?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 31 May 2016 06:31:00 +0000

Someone passed me the following apt quotation regarding indifference towards politics and other matters. Of course we must be careful to avoid either extreme.

When St. Paul says, “Come out and be separate,” he did not mean that Christians ought to take no interest in anything on earth except religion. To neglect science, art, literature, and politics – to read nothing which is not directly spiritual - to know nothing about what is going on among mankind, and never to look at a newspaper - to care nothing about the government of one’s country, and to be utterly indifferent as to the persons who guide its counsels and make its laws - all this may seem very right and proper in the eyes of some people. But I take leave to think that it is an idle, selfish, neglect of duty. St. Paul knew the value of good government, as one of the main helps to our “living a quiet and peaceable life in godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:2). St Paul was not ashamed to read heathen writers, and to quote their words in his speeches and writings. St. Paul did not think it beneath him to show an acquaintance with the laws and customs and callings of the world, in the illustrations he gave from them. Christians who plume themselves on their ignorance of secular things are precisely the Christians who bring religion into contempt.

JC Ryle - Practical Religion - p.291/2

Bread Upon the Waters

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:01:00 +0000

Awaiting me on the table of the train the other week was a discarded newspaper. Nothing unusual about that. This one had a Bible text written on it. Was this a wayside text giving the gospel to anyone who would follow it up? But the reference didn't sound familiar. I looked Jeremiah 32:15 up and it was an unusual verse to see referred to. Did they even get the verse/chapter number right? No doubt someone wrote it there more for their own memory rather than the encouragement of others. What did they make of it? What did I make of it? Nothing happens as mere coincidence. What could be learned?

In this verse, Jeremiah is acting in hope even though it seems pointless and meaningless to buy a field. It would be destroyed and dispossessed. It was an act of faith and obedience. It is like casting your bread on the waters and finding it after many days. It is like Abraham going out by faith not knowing where he was going but believing in God's direction and covenant promise. The promise is that this will be fruitful in the future. The evidences would be preserved and the land restored and inhabited once more. The evidences preserved in the earthen vessel are as much the promises of God as the deeds to the land.

I think that the encouragement is that serving God in our generation may seem to be hard and bear little fruit. Those whose labour is in the Word and doctrine seem to toil all night but take nothing. The Word is circulated, tracts distributed, good material published with little apparent effect. But God's Word will not return to Him void, it will accomplish the purpose He has determined for it. He will bring fruit from it, perhaps after many days. We must fix our eyes upon the horizon. The future is as bright as the promises of God. They sow in tears but there will be a joyful reaping. The harvest is said to be certain according to the promise.

Humphrey Hardwicke preached a sermon on sowing in tears and reaping in joy. He said that

as the husbandman [farmer] in times of dearth and scarcity is much more diligent and plentiful in manuring his land, carefull to provide precious seed, and incessant for the repelling of famine, and procuring of plenty; so must Gods people, they must be up and doing, put their shoulder to the work, their hand to the plough, think nothing too much that they are able to do; hey must labour plough, sow part with all as precious seed, lay it down in the dust.

He continues on a similar theme:

It remains now only, that I call upon every one that would not be counted an enemy, but a friend of Sion, to be up and doing, to be much and active in pious and precious endeavour for the perfecting our Sion's deliverance, and the establishing of our Jerusalem in peace and truth. Now is time for... every one in his place and station, to few precious seed. What considering man then would suffer sloth or negligence, ease or self respects, to hinder him from being an instrument of so great good, as may come to the Church and State. Many of you are, all of you may be, under God, the cause of much good to many generations: Be therefore of St. Paul's mind, suffer nothing to deprive you of the glory of such rejoicing, and the testimony of a good conscience.

Matthew Henry says about Jeremiah 32:15:

though Jerusalem was now besieged, and the whole country was likely to be laid waste, yet the time should come when houses, and fields, and vineyards should be again possessed in this land, v. 15. As God appointed Jeremiah to confirm his predictions of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by his own practice in living unmarried, so he now appointed him to confirm his predictions of the future restoration of Jerusalem by his own practice in purchasing this field. Note, It concerns ministers to make it to appear in their whole conversation that they do themselves believe that which they preach to others; and that they may do so, and impress it the more deeply upon their hearers, they must many a time deny themselves, as Jeremiah did in both these instances. God having promised that this land should again come into the possession of his people, Jeremiah will, on behalf of his heirs, put in for a share. Note, It is good to manage even our worldly affairs in faith, and to do common business with an eye to the providence and promise of God. Lucius Florus relates it as a great instance of the bravery of the Roman citizens that in the time of the second Punic war, when Hannibal besieged Rome and was very near making himself master of it, a field on which part of his army lay, being offered to sale at that time, was immediately purchased, in a firm belief that the Roman valour would raise the siege, lib. ii. cap. 6. And have not we much more reason to venture our all upon the word of God, and to embark in Zion’s interests, which will undoubtedly be the prevailing interests at last? Non si male nunc et olim sic erit—Though now we suffer, we shall not suffer always.

Gleaning in Boaz's Fields

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:31:00 +0000

...there are so many useful and powerful sermons we hear but I just wanted to pick out one that I've heard that is very practical and experimental. Particularly as to how Scripture makes Christ precious and brings Him near. Put it at the top of your "to listen" list.

http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/sermon/gleaning-in-boazs-fields/

A 400th Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:53:00 +0000

Today marks the 400th birthday of Richard Baxter. I know his systematic theology was a very modern mish-mash of much error. His practical writings, however, are hard to beat for comprehensive, searching - very practical teaching. He doesn't leave stones unturned when he considers our thought life, the use of the tongue, domestic relation and much more. The Practical Works are thousands of pages long, but worth any time you can spend in them.

If you haven't tried him before and want somewhere simple to start - perhaps try here.

When I was a student, I found Baxter's directions about how to spend the day with God so useful that I simplified the language. It's here.

As he put it himself - "let the holy scriptures ever have the pre-eminence, and, next to them, those solid, lively, heavenly treatises which best expound and apply the scriptures, and next, credible histories, especially of the Church . . . but take heed of false teachers who would corrupt your understandings."

The Free Offer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:44:00 +0000

Yesterday was the second day of the FP Theological Conference. Unfortunately, I was only able to take some summary notes of a paper by Rev. Allan MacColl on The Free Offer. This is my paraphrased summary and not verbatim so it gives a flavour and any mistakes are mine. I hope it is printed and if so this may whet your appetite.

He began by noting that although the language of the free offer is part of the fixed doctrinal constitution of presbyterian churches it is still controverted. That is in Westminster Confession 7:3

Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

He emphasised the Father's gift in this offer. [See also Larger Catechism 32, 63, 67 and 68]

The paper was divided as follows:

1. Outline of positions on the issue

2. Biblical grounds for the orthodox position

3. Objections raised against the orthodox position

1. Outline of positions on the issue

A definition of the free offer was given along the following lines (paraphrased).

The assertion that God in bringing good news through preaching invites all who hear to accept without reservation.

The offer is free since there is nothing in the sinner to merit or deserve it and no requirement for God to give it.

Thomas Boston defined different kinds of faith in his View of the Covenant of Grace. These include the faith of Christ's sufficiency, the faith of the gospel offer, faith of our right to Christ etc

Historically this is only a controversy within Calvinism. Arminians do not have this controversy. Yet they have difficulty in relation to the genuine freeness of the offer. Is it divine free grace or human free will?

There are various views as follows

1. No offer can be given to the unconverted. Promises are for the elect only.

2. Offer is based on a universal atonement

3. Westminster position i.e. there is a free offer but not it is not based on a Universal Atonement

4. A free offer but with qualified extent

This issue at stake is the basic issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. How can a dead sinner be addressed in terms of responsibility? Must we limit any offer to the elect only?

1. No offer to sinners

Very few Calvinists hold to this position. Mainly 18thc English dissenters and some Dutch. Some believer that the offer was a privilege given to Israel uniquely as a covenanted people. They separate if off as an Old Testament or Jewish privilege. Yet if only Jews were to be exhorted to believe - how could the gentiles be gathered in? How could they lay hold of a salvation not offered to them?

The most extreme view within this overall position is that it is not the duty of the non-elect to believe.
Yet God can command duty from the non-elect e.g. God's moral law. Arminians say God does not command what creatures cannot perform. These Hyper calvinists say that God cannot command what they cannot perform. The hyper-calvinist view leads to the conclusion that the more wicked a man becomes the less responsible he is.

He quoted John Bonar's sermon that said that God can blame and punish man for what they cannot fulfil. He can demand it. God cannot demand anything other than spiritual service.

God has in fact decreed and ordained what He requires.

He referred to Luke 11:13 and quoted Shedd to the effect that as the atonement offered indiscriminately so the Spirit also is offered.

An anti-duty faith position tends to reflect a particular view of the Church i.e. gathered congregation in which the only preaching is about marks of grace.

2. Offer based on universal atonement

This is the Arrminian and Amyraldian view based on a spurious universal atonement. Scripture, however, makes Christ's intercession and atonement coextensive.

This universalist view has no definite salvation to offer.

3. Orthodox view of the Free Offer
The doctrine of the free offer has survived mainly unscathed down through the centuries in Scotland. The Marrow controversy only served to strengthen adherence to it. The main oppenent of the Marrow was called Hadow - he said that every man's duty was to believe but yet the offer should only go to the elect. It was emphasised that the Marrow does not advance universal atonement.

4. Qualified extent

He referred to 20thc views such as Herman Hoeksema. He argued that offer means to present not invite. The offer is not well meant but mere command. There are dangerous consequences for those lacking assurance. These have no access to an offered saviour until doubts are resolved.

2. Biblical grounds for Orthodox position
Is 45:22

Is 55:1, 7

Matthew 11: 28

John 6:37

John 7:37

Revelation 3:20

Revelation 22:17

These texts show that the wicked and unrighteous are addressed with a conditional promise offer of pardon.

Christ's ambassadors commanded to preach the gospel Matthew 28:28. There are no distinctions who to offer to. The nature of gospel requires this offer. They are to persuade men to personal acceptance of the offer.

The irony is that those who deny the offer only came to Christ through it whatever may be their understanding of how it happened.

Optative verses

These are expressive of desire in terms of what pleases God. Deuteronomy 5:29; 33:29; Matthew 23:27. There is a lot of Anthropopathism and anthropomorphic language in them. Nevertheless they contain something of what is pleasing to God and consistent with His nature as One who hates sin. Ezekiel 33:11. The decree of God is not in view here but rather His preceptive will.

It is inaccurate to say that God desires the salvation of all men and there are not two contradictory wills in God. Turretin is helpful in that he says it is inconsistent to say that God could intend the salvation of those whom He has reprobated. But He still acts seriously in calling them to receive the offer. God delights in the eternal life of a sinner and therefore demands that he turn.

Preachers must preach the gospel with love and an earnest desire for hearers to be saved. They will not be more compassionate than Christ when they do. The Holy Spirit causes this love to their neighbour.

3. Objections
Some wish to find a basis for the offer or grounds of the offer in the atonement. This has produced baleful consequences. It is trying to square a theological circle. There was much controversy in the Victorian United Presbyterian Church on this. We are not to base the offer on the sufficiency of atonement but we can offer it as altogether suitable and infinite.

Matt 5:43-48. God's general love for all men can provide a motive although not grounds for the offer.

Primary purpose special love of god to elect

William Cunnigham said that we must keep our warrant for preaching the offer and God's warrant for giving it strictly separate.

We should base the offer solely on the command of the Word not inferences such as the atonement or nature of God.

He referred to the Warrants and Motives to believe in the Sum of Saving Knowledge

1. God's hearty invitation,
2. His earnest request to be reconciled,
3. His command, charging all to believe,
4. Much assurance of life given to believers, etc.,

He also referred to John Colquhoun's excellent book on saving faith and its definition.

Objection that bible passages do not apply to all men is probably the most powerful objection.
But this leads to emphasising a certain degree of conviction in order to embrace these passages e.g. as a convinced sinner. It is easy for subtle form of self-righteousness to enter. It must be a hope based on the promises not our condition or feelings. We must not limit the offer to exclude any. We must press on sinners their responsibility for what they do with the offer. God has ordained means they are to use them.