Debate: How the Solemn League & Covenant Binds the Usa, Canada, Australia, etc., Today (1/3) — Greg Barrow

Covenanted Uniformity as the Protestant Remedy for Disunity

Covenanted Uniformity, the Protestant Remedy for Disunity, being Chapter 3 of Greg Barrow's book The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics. Hello, I'm Larry Berger. You're about to hear the most clear exposition of the biblical Protestant doctrine of the ordinance of covenanting that I believe can be found anywhere today.

Regrettably, time and circumstantial restrictions have prevented me from giving a prefatory overview of this subject and its vital importance. However, as the title of these tapes indicates, the Covenanted Uniformity practiced by various reformers and faithful Protestants was truly the Protestant remedy for disunity.

They sought for and vowed themselves to true unity, that is, unity that comes, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 .10, from being of the same mind and in the same judgment concerning biblical doctrine, worship, and church government and discipline, in contrast to the false unity promoted today, which is but unity in name and utterly destructive of truth and godliness.

As you listen, please consider whether what you're currently being taught and what so-called Protestant churches today are practicing is actually the biblical Protestantism of the Reformation. If not, why not, and what then are we to do?

As an introductory answer to these questions, I've decided to include here my narrator's preface for Eschewing Ecclesiastical Tyranny, the Duty of Christ's Sheep, which is Appendix G of the Covenanted Reformation Defended.

Although this preface does not address the ordinance of covenanting directly, I believe it is nevertheless very relevant, and I trust it will prove a helpful forerunner to Barrow's treatment on covenanting, one that provokes us to love and good works and a greater appreciation of our Savior's mercy.

May God richly bless you as you hear expounded the biblical old paths wherein is rest for our souls, Jeremiah 6 .16. Please note that this entire book is free on Stillwaters Revival Books website www .swrb .com.

It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters, along with a treasure trove of the finest Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in the world today. Stillwaters can be reached at 780 -450 -3730 or by email at swrb at swrb .com.

True Unity Must Be Governed by Christ's Word

Let us therefore remember that whenever church unity is commended to us, this is required, that while our minds agree in Christ, our wills should also be joined with mutual benevolence in Christ. Paul therefore, while urging us to it, takes it as his foundation that there is one God, one faith, and one baptism.

Indeed, wherever Paul teaches us to feel the same and will the same, he immediately adds in Christ or according to Christ. He means that apart from the Lord's Word there is not an agreement of believers, but a faction of wicked men.

We therefore conclude that among the godly, the communion of the church ought not to extend so far that if it degenerates into profane and corrupted rites, they have to follow it headlong. Some will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things.

The first advice would be to leave, that is, to relocate if he could. If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul.

Then, since we are to abstain from all such idolatry, let him worship God in private, praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate. Hello, I'm Larry Berger. These powerful quotes from Book 4, Chapter 2 of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and from his anti-nicodemite writings, forthcoming from Protestant Heritage Press, demonstrate that while we are to place the highest premium on the unity of the church, we must be certain that it is true scriptural unity we are promoting and not a satanic substitute.

Indeed, this worthy Reformer is emphatic that true unity is so precious to Christ and his people that if anything but the real thing is presented to the church, she is to reject it and wait prayerfully for such time that God will bring about true, lasting unity.

To accept tawdry substitutes for biblical unity, those that promote unity at the expense of any of the least of the truths of the Word of God, those that make unity an end in itself, rather than subservient to the promotion and preservation of the truth and the pure worship of God, is not to preserve Christ's body whole, but to rip her into a thousand pieces and to court the wrath of her jealous husband.

Such is the state of affairs in the church today where it seems all schemes but the biblical plan for unity are championed, and where when so-called unity is attained, truth and purity are always the losers.

Private Judgment and Liberty of Conscience

One of the precious fundamental teachings of scripture recovered in the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine of private judgment, that is, that each individual Christian has both the right and the responsibility to test all that is put before him for acceptance, and to believe and to practice that and only that which is agreeable to the scriptures.

Thus the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts, God alone is the Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word or beside it in matters of faith or worship, so that to believe such doctrines or to obey such commandments out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience, and the requiring of an implicit faith and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.

That's chapter 20, section 2. In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic Church maintains the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith or morals, and asserts that it is the domain of the Holy Mother Church, not that of individual believers, to determine the true sense or meaning of the scriptures.

Thus in the Creed of Pope Pius IV, 1564, we find, I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense or meaning which our Holy Mother, the Church, has held and does hold, to which church it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Notwithstanding these blasphemous and despotic assertions, however, private judgment, as will be shown, is the privilege and duty of all believers. Indeed it is essential to the unity and purity of Christ's Church, so much so that there can be no biblical unity without it, and it also affords the last defense against the kind of arbitrary, soul-damaging, and even damning, tyranny and error exemplified by, but not limited to, the Roman Catholic Church.

Lamentably, churches wearing the name Protestant have, since the time of the Protestant Reformation, increasingly embraced numerous Romanist errors. These include a false and dangerous conception of the visible Church, tyrannical doctrines of ecclesiastical and civil authority, corruptions of the sacraments, false views of free will and the nature of man, and other points of Arminianism in doctrine, Arminianism in worship, such as the use of choirs, celebration of holy days like Christmas and Easter, church calendars with their various days and seasons, and pictures of Christ, and perversions of church government and discipline, for example, Episcopalianism, Congregationalism, and Independence.

As you will hear on this tape, some have even gone to the point of denying the fundamental doctrine of sola scriptura, that is, that the Bible is the alone infallible rule of faith and practice, by denying private judgment, which is a natural and necessary consequence of sola scriptura.

Because even this most vital teaching is being eroded and attacked, which, if it continues, will plunge the Church back into a full-fledged slavery to error and idolatry, as was the case before the Reformation, I'd like to spend a few moments considering how prominent the doctrine of private judgment is in the Scriptures.

By so doing, I hope to fix more firmly in our minds the privilege and duty we have to eschew or shun ecclesiastical tyranny, and thereby to enhance the usefulness of Mr. Barrow's concise explanation and defense of private judgment.

By giving careful heed to the Word of God and to the testimony of our faithful Reformed forefathers, to which testimony the Bible commands us to listen, Proverbs 1 .8, Jeremiah 6 .16, Hebrews 11 .4 and 13 .17, and so forth, we will be led to a fresh appreciation of one of the chief benefits purchased for us by the blood and sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to a renewed holy hatred of all that is contrary to this precious benefit.

By this means we will be equipped to recover and maintain the true biblical unity of Christ's Church, and end the multitudinous schisms currently afflicting her and grieving and dishonoring her Lord. The Scriptures confirm and urge the right and duty of private judgment in numerous ways.

Biblical Authority and the Testing of Teachers

First, we see it in the biblical conception of authority, where God alone bears absolute unqualified rule over men's consciences. The Lord commands us, Be not servants to men, 1 Corinthians 7 .23, while insisting as the ultimate reason for believing and obeying Him that I am the Lord thy God, Exodus 20, verse 2, and so forth.

Thus the apostles expressly said they were only helpers of our faith and not lords over it, 2 Corinthians 1 .24, and referred to their ministry as existing only for the purpose of edification, 2 Corinthians 10 .8 and 13, verse 10.

They expressly taught they had authority only insofar as their officiations were according to the truth, 2 Corinthians 13 .8, and not simply because they claimed a title and held an ecclesiastical office.

We can only give implicit faith, then, to the Lord God, and not to any, even the most faithful church or leader. To do otherwise is to ascribe to them an incommunicable attribute of God, blasphemous, idolatrous, and perilous indeed.

Moreover, every command to submit to church leadership necessarily implies this duty. The Bible tells us that we are to submit to, emulate, and follow faithful leaders and churches, for example, 1 Timothy 5 .17 and Hebrews 13 .17.

Faithful is not here a meaningless adjective, but rather presupposes sound scriptural evaluation of this leadership on our parts. The same applies to God's command to receive faithful doctrine. We are as well frankly and soberly told of the existence of false teachers not outside the church, but within the church.

We must be certain here, however, to distinguish the various types of false teachers. Some men, like Apollos, are godly and competent, but simply uninstructed in the whole counsel of God. Others, like Nicodemus, John chapter 3, have no business teaching, not yet at least, as they are incompetent in their doctrinal knowledge.

Others have been soundly instructed, but, like Peter, have fallen back into their old sin and errors. Still others are described in the most fearful terms, Satan's ministers, 2 Corinthians 11 .15, deceivers and being deceived, 2 Timothy 3 .13, twice dead in clouds without water, Jude 12, and in the case of the man of sin, who the Reformers identified as the office of the Pope, one who exalts himself above God and is, like Judas, a son of perdition, 2 Thessalonians 2 .3.

Obviously, if we are to identify any of these errant teachers, we must judge them ourselves, individually, by criteria independent of their mere profession to be teachers and leaders, or faithful churches and denominations, or their insistence that the Bible supposedly says we are to submit to them.

And, in fact, this is exactly what we observe in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit highly commends such examples for our imitation. Thus the Bereans are said to be more noble than the Thessalonians, because they not only heard the Apostle Paul, but heard him with a ready-minded, careful discernment, searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so, Acts 17 .11.

Likewise, the Ephesian elders in Revelation 2 were praised by Christ, because they tried them which said they were apostles and were not, and found them liars, Revelation 2 .2. Whereas the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira were sternly rebuked for merely tolerating false guides, warning that those who tolerated these teachers, though they themselves were Orthodox, were nevertheless subject to the judgments sent upon the false teachers, see also Revelation 18 .4.

Commands to Flee Error and Reject False Teaching

Finally, as if these overwhelming scriptural evidences and arguments weren't enough, we have the plain command of God throughout the entire Bible. Examples are so numerous that we're forced to limit ourselves to just a few.

In Deuteronomy 13, we're forewarned that God will test us by allowing false prophets to arise, who will have every seemingly good qualification to commend us to believe them, and yet whose doctrine will lead us away from the true God.

Solomon is emphatic concerning the need to flee from error and erroneous teachers. Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth the error from the words of Proverbs 19 .27. Both Isaiah and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself warn us that if we follow unsound instruction, we will suffer the severe consequences.

For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and they that are led of them are destroyed. His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark. Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Isaiah 9 .16 and 56 .10, Matthew 15 .14. And we should note here, as was alluded above, that it is not simply teachers who we regard to be non-Christians or obstinate opponents to the truth that we are to take heed of and avoid.

This ought to be evident, for a teacher as such should be judged by his teaching, not by whether we think he'll spend eternity in heaven, though this is obviously a vital matter. Just because he's qualified for heaven does not mean he's qualified to teach and lead Christ's sheep.

It is also plainly taught in the verses themselves, for they do not say that the primary reason the people are being led astray is because the teachers are unsaved, though in many cases this is indeed the ultimate reason for their teaching error, but because they are blind to and ignorant of the truth, and their doctrine causes the people to err.

We are thus forbidden every bit as much from sitting ourselves under ignorant, unsafe teachers as we are from sitting under those who are likely unsaved, ravenous wolves. Many more instances can be found in the New Testament.

Indeed, one need only consider that most of the New Testament itself was written to refute errors and erring teachers, and thereby to confirm and protect Christ's sheep. Thus, in a very real sense, the New Testament en masse is a direct commandment to judge and reject all false teaching and teachers.

For the sake of brevity, however, we will consider only one more clear command, Romans 16, 17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.

Notice that there are three commands here, two explicit and one implicit. The implicit command is that we ensure that we ourselves know the apostolic doctrine, the whole counsel of God, Acts 20 .26, the doctrine which we have learned.

The first explicit command is to mark, that is, to identify, to make careful note of, those who deviate from this doctrine, thereby causing schisms and all manner of damage to the Church of Christ. The second explicit command flows from it.

We are to avoid, shun, or eschew all such teachers, churches, or denominations. For it is obvious that if one teacher who thus causes schism is to be avoided, how much more an entire church or denomination which is causing such division by its false doctrines.

Interestingly, the command to mark in this passage is the same Greek word used in Philippians 3, 17, where we are commanded to mark faithful teachers and to emulate their faithfulness. Finally, note how serious a matter it is for us to identify and separate from such false teachers and teachings.

Paul beseeches us, earnestly entreating that we do so, and commands us by invoking the terrible name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This single consideration alone, the invocation of the name of the Lord, recall the language in Exodus, I am the Lord thy God, should overwhelmingly compel us to follow through carefully on this command.

All the more should we do so when in conjunction with this we consider that it is taught either expressly or by implication from one end of the Bible to the other. Even from this cursory view of the doctrine of private judgment, its prominence in Scripture and the great care employed by the Holy Spirit in communicating it to us are manifest.

It is precisely because Christ's sheep do not use this precious gift and then separate from those who are ignorant blind guides or who are obstinately holding to error, that the blindness, error, disunity, and decline in practical godliness characterizing the church today continue and thrive.

With the exercise of private judgment, these grievous sins could not continue. Without the exercise of private judgment, they will not cease. Dear brethren, we have a command, not from the Reformers, but from the Lord Jesus Christ to use this private judgment and to act on it accordingly.

Indeed, we have more than a command. He has purchased it for us with His own blood and given us the Holy Spirit in order to employ it. He will bless us if we practice it scripturally, and His anger will follow us if we don't.

He is honored greatly when we faithfully exercise it. It is the height of impiety and blasphemy when we neglect it. Let us then not be those who maintain and even widen the breaches in the walls of Christ Jerusalem, but those who instead endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Ephesians 4 3.

May God bless all of us with peace and joy as we stand fast in the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free. Covenanted uniformity, the Protestant remedy for disunity, being chapter 3 of Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.

The PRCE's Distinction Between the Being and Well-Being of the Church

Misrepresentation number 3, the Puritan Reformed Church, that is, PRCE, maintains that a church cannot be truly and biblically constituted without formally swearing and adopting the Solemn League and Covenant.

First, Mr. Bacon asserts that the PRCE maintains that taking the Solemn League and Covenant is necessary to exist as a truly constituted church. Quote, essentially the difference between the Reformation Presbyterian Church and PRCE is that the Reformation Presbyterian Church maintains that a church can be truly and biblically constituted without swearing the Solemn League and Covenant, and the PRCE claims that a church is not a properly, truly, biblically constituted church if it has not formally adopted the Solemn League and Covenant.

That's from Defense Departed. Again, the issue is strictly whether the Solemn League and Covenant is a necessary document in order for a church to be a properly, truly, biblically constituted church. Again, from Defense Departed.

Second, Mr. Bacon argues that the Solemn League and Covenant is used by the Stelites in principally the same way as Rome uses its doctrine of tradition. Quote, neither is this a minor distinction. The Reformed and Presbyterian churches maintain that the church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Ephesians 220.

The Romanist Church maintains that the church is built upon Scripture plus the traditions of the church. Without the tradition, there is no true constitution. While the contents of the traditions differ between the Roman Catholic Church and the Stelites, the principle is the same.

Without the right tradition, no constitutional church can exist. This distinction is essential to the very definition of Protestantism. Epistemologically speaking, Sola Scriptura is prior even to Sola Fide or Sola Christo.

From Defense Departed. Third, Mr. Bacon denies that the Solemn League and Covenant binds him to historical or accidental aspects of the document, but admits it does bind him to moral duties only so far as they directly apply to God's law.

Quote, so then we account the Solemn League and Covenant, an edifying historical document which contains in it several more moral duties, but we deny that the existence of moral duties within a document binds subsequent generations of the church to the historical and accidental aspects of the document.

As Calvin said, these things should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation. It should further be noted that whatever in a document is a moral duty is a moral duty so far and only so far as it is a direct application of God's moral law.

That's from Defense Departed. I will deal with the two false accusations first and then proceed to discuss Mr. Bacon's erring comments regarding the binding nature of the Solemn League and Covenant. Does the Puritan Reformed Church maintain that swearing and adopting the Solemn League and Covenant is necessary to the definition of a truly constituted church as to essence?

In the previous section I demonstrated that the PRCE maintains that, strictly speaking, the only mark necessary to the being or essence of a true visible church is a visible profession of the truth and doctrine of godliness.

For this reason the PRCE has always believed the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett to be a true church as to its being. The reason I have devoted so much time to these ecclesiological distinctions is that the huge majority of Mr. Bacon's unqualified libel is based upon his misunderstanding of this one concept.

His charge that we maintain that it is necessary to swear the Solemn League and Covenant to be a truly constituted church while failing to qualify what he means by the word church is a perfect example of his inability to apply this necessary distinction.

The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton PRCE unequivocally states that it is not necessary to swear the Solemn League and Covenant to be a truly constituted church as to essence. First, Mr. Bacon's inability to distinguish the being from the well-being of the church has again led him to make a seriously flawed and unqualified accusation about the PRCE.

In this respect I judge Mr. Bacon's conduct to be a violation of the Ninth Commandment. His sin is aggravated by the fact that he has publicly sinned while holding the office of a minister of Christ. His testimony against us has led his followers to fight against that which is agreeable to God's Word and intended for their edification.

Those who believe what he is saying should carefully consider to whom they turn for counsel, lest his bad manners and libel become for them an example to follow. The true state of the question. This leads us to consider the next topic which stands in need of clarification.

Mr. Bacon, either by ignorance or design, has directed all the attention to the wrong question. He wishes to make the PRCE say that it is necessary to take the covenants in order to be a Christian church, essa, or being.

A more informed opponent would understand that the question truly revolves around whether or not it is necessary to the well-being of a Christian church to keep the promises representatively made by their forefathers.

Taking the covenants are not an absolute necessity to the essential constitution of the church, and we have never in any of our writing or preaching said they were. Instead, we have maintained that, in a covenanted land where lawful promises have already been made, they are necessary to keep for the well-being of our constitution and for the integrity of our witness for Christ.

Lawful promises must necessarily be kept, and covenants, once made, are necessary to own, adopt, and renew, lest we open ourselves to the charge of taking the Lord's name in vain. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it, for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee, and it would be sin in thee.

Deuteronomy 23, 21. Therefore, dear reader, I ask you not to let Mr. Bacon's vague notions cloud the question. The question is about the well-being of the church and not its being, about whether a church is being faithful to covenant promises already made, and not about whether a church is Christian or pagan.

Practically, we must determine whether we ought to approve of and associate with churches who are unfaithfully violating binding covenant obligations, and whether or not we are duty-bound to conscionably withdraw from them as covenant breakers.

The importance of this question must not be underestimated. Those who approve of and associate with obstinate covenant breakers are accomplice to their crimes, while those who testify against them remain free of their sinful influence and just punishment.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Deuteronomy 5, 11. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, PRCE, maintains that, in a land already bound by the covenants, it is necessary to own and renew the national covenant and the solemn legion covenant to be a truly constituted church as to well-being, that is, a faithful church.

The PRCE has never said that the covenants are necessary to the existence of a church, but rather that the covenants are necessary to the well-being of a church, assuming, of course, that the church in question has descended from the original covenanting churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland.

Our forefathers made covenant promises on our behalf, and we cannot preserve or maintain a faithful testimony while ignoring their formal and material obligations. For a nation, church, or individual to ignore the obligations formally laid upon them by their ancestors would be to open themselves to the legitimate charges of covenant-breaking and perjury, both of which are fundamentally destructive to the well-being of the Church of Christ and to the perfecting of the saints.

This would be to willingly and purposely subvert the intended purpose of the ordinance of covenanting as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25, section 3. Unto this Catholic and visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life to the end of the world, and doth by his own presence and spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

Since the appearance of Brian Schwartley's slanderous open letter, April 1997, and especially since Mr. Bacon's defense departed appeared on the FPCR website, August 1997, young and inexperienced, and some who should have known better, believers have come to the sad conclusion that the PRCE does not think that anybody is a Christian Church unless they take the covenants.

We have received calls and letters from some brethren indicating that Mr. Bacon's scandalous misrepresentations have sinfully affected some dear people, and we cannot adequately express how grieved we are by this turn of events.

The misrepresentations expressed in Mr. Bacon's defense departed are among the most ignorant and dishonest I have encountered from a man of his supposed caliber of scholarship. How he can have a clear conscience regarding what he has written is beyond my comprehension.

I do pray that God will grant him repentance in this matter. Again, for the sake of those who believed Mr. Bacon's report, I repeat that the PRCE unequivocally states that it is not, not, not necessary to swear the covenants to be a truly constituted church as to essence.

If those who oppose us cannot believe our explicit statements, then I fear our arguments will have little effect upon such a calloused prejudice. Mr. Bacon ignorantly compares us to keepers of Roman Catholic tradition.

Immediately after Mr. Bacon utters his unqualified charges, he compares us with the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that all who do not accept her traditions are to be considered non-Christian churches.

While he represents the position of Roman Catholic Church correctly, he proceeds to violently twist our meaning into something far different from what we have ever taught. The Catholic Church, in her most recent official catechism, says,.

The sole church of Christ is that which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. The church constituted and organized as a society in the present world subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by bishops in communion with him.

That is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 234. The Second Vatican Council's decree on ecumenism states,. For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

It was also to the Apostolic College alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the new covenant in order to establish on earth the one body of Christ into which all those who should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

That's the Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 234. Again, I remind the reader of Mr. Bacon's charge,. Neither is this a minor distinction. The Reformed and Presbyterian Church has maintained that the Church is built on the apostles and prophets, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Ephesians 220.

The Romanist Church maintains that the Church is built upon scripture plus the traditions of the Church. Without the tradition, there is no true constitution. While the contents of the traditions differ between the Roman Catholic Church and the Stelites, the principle is the same.

Without the right tradition, no constitutional church can exist. This distinction is essential to the very definition of Protestantism. Epistemologically speaking, sola scriptura is prior even to sola fide or sola Christo, from defense departed.

It is true that the Church of Rome puts tradition and scripture on the same level of authority as the following citation demonstrates. Sacred scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit, and holy tradition transmits in its entirety the word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles so that, enlightened by the spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by preaching.

As a result, the Church to whom the transmission and interpretation of revelation is entrusted does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy scriptures alone. Both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

Scripture, Covenants, and Subordinate Standards

Does the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton equate the covenants with scripture as Mr. Bacon misrepresents? The PRCE's first term of communion requires an acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.

Our fourth term of communion states that public social covenanting is an ordinance of God obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament, that the National Covenant and the Psalm-Ligon Covenant are an exemplification of this divine institution, and that these deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person, and in consistency with this, that the renovation of these covenants at Arkansas, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the word of God.

Notice that our covenants are said to be agreeable to God's word and not equal to God's word. The word of God is our alone infallible rule of faith and practice, while the covenants are said to be subordinately agreeable to God's word.

The Papists say that tradition and scripture are to be equally reverenced, while we say that all our standards are subordinated to the word of God. How can Mr. Bacon fail to notice the difference? That which is humanly composed though agreeable to God's word is subordinate to God's word and not equal to it.

Consequently, it is impossible and dishonest to misrepresent the position of the PRCE as making the covenants equal with scripture in the same sense as Rome equates scripture and papal tradition. I do not understand how Mr. Bacon can miss something so patently obvious.

Since I do not believe that Mr. Bacon is feeble-minded, I conclude that he intended something more sinister by making this comparison. Mr. Bacon unwittingly becomes an Arminian spokesman. To demonstrate how far off the mark Mr. Bacon actually is, I must now refer to an email discussion held between Pastor PRCE and Mr. Bacon on December 18, 1996.

In this correspondence, Mr. Bacon objects to Pastor PRCE's position by writing, quote, You have made the solemn legion covenant the rule of faith and practice. By referring to the non-necessity of taking a particular covenant as a sin, you have made it the, or at least a, rule of faith and practice, close quote.

It is here that Mr. Bacon displays his significant ignorance on this subject. Samuel Rutherford heard this exact objection from the Arminians of his day, and I asked the reader to observe how closely Mr. Bacon's objection matches that of the Arminians.

Mr. Bacon states, You have made the solemn legion covenant the rule of faith and practice, or at least a rule of faith and practice. Samuel Rutherford replies, Arminians argue a confession or covenant is not a rule of faith, it hath not the lowest place in the church.

The covenant written and sealed in Nehemiah's time was a secondary rule of faith, in the same sense as the PRCE's fourth term of communion, and a rule insofar as it agreed with the law of Moses. For they enter in a curse and an oath to walk in God's law, not to give their sons and daughters in marriage to the heathen, not to buy victuals from the heathen on the Sabbath, to charge themselves to give money to maintain the service of God.

Nehemiah 9, 38, 10, 1 -3, 29 -32. Which written covenant was not scripture, and Acts 15, the decrees of the synod, was not formally scripture, yet to be observed as a secondary rule. And that's from Rutherford's free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience, page 25.

According to Rutherford, Nehemiah's covenant was necessary to be taken, as was the directive of the assembly of elders and apostles in Acts 15. The necessity of obeying these human constitutions was based on the fact that they were agreeable to scripture.

Though both were subordinate to God's word, I observed that Rutherford rightly concludes that they form a secondary rule of faith, and thus they become necessarily obliging upon all for whom they were intended.

Consider the necessity of the covenant laid upon the tribes of Israel in the fifteenth year of Asa, where whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death. And when Asa heard these words and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from Mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the Lord that was before the porch of the Lord.