Debate: Eschewing Ecclesiastical Tyranny (Protestant Biblical Separation) — Greg Barrow

Biblical Unity and the Rejection of Corrupted Worship

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.

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, 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.

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 .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 .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 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 and 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.

Biblical Commands to Test and Reject False Teachers

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 are forced to limit ourselves to just a few.

In Deuteronomy 13, we are 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 to err from the words of knowledge, 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. As chewing ecclesiastical tyranny, the duty of Christ's sheep, being Appendix G of Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.

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 by phone at 780 -450 -3730 or by email at swrb .swrb .com. Also note that since Barrow's work is an unequaled modern remedy for the disunity and impurity rampant in the Church, after this appendix I will be reading the foreword that he requested me to write.

This foreword surveys the book and I believe it gives a concise and powerful presentation of why the Covenanted Reformation Defended is so important for the well-being of Christ's bruised and battered bride.

The Visible Church and the Meaning of Church Membership

Appendix G. A brief examination of Mr. Richard Bacon's principles regarding the visible Church and the use of private judgment. Also some observations regarding his ignoble attack upon Mr. Kevin Reed in his book entitled The Visible Church and the Outer Darkness.

Mr. Bacon says, Mr. Bacon again displays his formidable ignorance when making such comments. How can he say that Mr. Dodson is a man who is a member of no church at all? According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, Section 2, Mr. Dodson's credible profession of faith makes him a member of the universal visible Church of Jesus Christ.

How then is he a member of no church at all? Sadly, it seems that Mr. Bacon makes the ministry, ordinances, and discipline of the Church essential to its being. To him, unless you are formally a member of a local church, you are in the outer darkness.

This is the doctrine of papists, that is, that pastors, elders, and deacons are necessary to the existence of the visible Church as to being. Perhaps Mr. Bacon would also deride John Calvin for giving the following godly advice to his flock.

My God, they had the courage to gather in the name of Jesus Christ wherever they are, and to set up some sort of church, either in their houses or in those of their neighbors, to do in their place what we do here in our temples.

And whoever has no means of being in the Christian church where God is worshipped purely, let him at least groan night and day, Thine altars, Lord, it is only Thine altars that I desire, my God, my King.

That's John Calvin from his book Come Out From Among Them, the anti-nicodemite writings of John Calvin, which is forthcoming from Protestant Heritage Press, pages 192 and 193. And again, quoting Calvin, someone 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 let him worship God in private, praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate. And that's from the same book, pages 93 and 94. Would Mr. Bacon say to those who dwell in some Egypt or Babylon, would to God they had the courage to gather together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ wherever they are, and set up some sort of church, either in their houses or in those of their neighbors, to do in their place what we do here in our temples?

Or then let him worship God in private, praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate? Not as long as he obstinately maintains his present errors. Those who have set up house churches in places where God is not worshiped purely are libeled by Mr. Bacon and said to be a member of no church at all.

Directly contradicting John Calvin, Mr. Bacon says, "...churching at home is a contradiction. The primary meaning of the word church is assembly.". That's from The Visible Church in the Outer Darkness, page 49.

Both Jim Dodson and Kevin Reed have felt the sting of Mr. Bacon's caustic pen. His abusive use of false principle and rhetoric are not confined to the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton. Sadly, Mr. Bacon reserves his most vicious denunciations for those who are most faithful to the biblical truths embodied in the godly standards of the First and Second Reformations, while leaving those who espouse his erroneous principles free to go about their business.

Those who profess the true religion together with their children are members of the Visible Church of Christ, whether they formally join a local congregation or not. It is their profession of faith that essentially makes them members, and not their association with an institution calling itself a church.

I certainly am not advocating that people start a house church if there is a faithful church with which to unite in the area. Rather, I am saying that when there is not a faithful church in the area, they must not settle for an unfaithful one.

That is to do evil that good may come. It is better to let our counsel come from Reformed divines who have scripturally guided the Church of Christ in times when godly ministers were few and far between.

We have already seen how John Calvin's teaching directly opposes that of Mr. Bacon, and now we must listen to the faithful counsel of the ministers of the Church of Scotland. We are not ignorant that the rarity of godly and learned men shall seem to some a just reason why that so straight and sharp examination should not be taken universally, for so it shall appear that the most part of the church shall have no minister at all.

But let these men understand that the lack of able men shall not excuse us before God if, by our consent, unable men be placed over the flock of Christ Jesus. As also that, amongst the Gentiles godly learned men were also rare as they are now amongst us, when the apostle gave the same rule to try and examine ministers which we now follow.

And, last, let them understand that it is alike to have no minister at all and to have an idol in the place of a true or faithful minister, yea, and in some cases it is worse. For those that are utterly destitute of ministers will be diligent to search for them, but those that have a vain shadow do commonly without further care content themselves with the same, and so they remain continually deceived, thinking that they have a minister when in very deed they have none.

That's from the first book of Discipline, page 37. Worse yet, we find Mr. Bacon elevating the authority of corrupt judicatories above the right of an individual believer to maintain a clear conscience.

While he acknowledges that a congregation may lawfully depart from a corrupt denomination, he denies the right of an individual or head of household to make such a determination. This is grossly heretical and violates the doctrinal principle of the Lordship of Christ alone over the believer's conscience.

In Mr. Bacon's ignoble attack upon Mr. Kevin Reed, he says,. There have been times in the history of God's church when corruptions were such that it became impossible to stay without sinning. But in such instances we must not flee Babel only to build Jericho, compared Joshua 6 .26 and 1 Kings 16 .34.

A Christian may request dismission from a less-reformed church to a more-reformed church, but he lacks authority as a private member to declare the church to be in extraordinary times and thus run without being sent.

Those who remove themselves from true churches under such a pretext prophesy without God speaking to them. From this we observe that Mr. Bacon believes that a group of men, as long as they have ministers to lead them, may lawfully determine to leave a denomination, while a private believer quote, lacks the authority to make the same choice.

What Presbyterian would teach that Mr. Reed lacked the authority to use his judgment of discretion to maintain a clear conscience in subjection to the word of God? George Gillespie comments, quote,. The subordinate judgment, which I call private, is the judgment of discretion whereby every Christian, for the certain information of his own mind and the satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try and examine as well the decrees of councils as the doctrine of particular pastors, and insofar to receive and believe the same as he understands them to agree with the Scriptures.

And again, a quote from Gillespie,. The prelates did not allow men to examine by the judgment of Christians and private discretion their decrees and canons, so as to search the Scriptures and look at the warrants.

But would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in places of power? Presbyterial government doth not lord it over men's consciences, but admitteth, yea, commendeth the searching of the Scriptures, whether these things that it holds forth be not so, and doth not press men's consciences with sic volo, sic jubeo, that is, as I will, so I order, but desireth that they may do in faith what they do.

And that's from Aaron's Rod Blossoming, pages 83 and 84. Either nobody has read Mr. Bacon's book, or nobody has bothered to correct something so obviously popish. His doctrine is not only contrary to Protestantism, but contrary to the light of nature and common sense.

Moreover, Mr. Bacon has more to contend with than Mr. Reid and ourselves, as is evidenced by the following comments from Francis Turretin. Quote,. Rather we hold only that private believers gifted with the Holy Spirit are bound to examine according to the word of God whatever is proposed for their belief or practice by the rulers of the church, as much as by individuals separately as by many congregated in a synod.

Also they are to believe that by the guidance of the Spirit, by pious prayers and diligent study of the Scriptures, they can better find out the meaning of Scripture in things necessary to salvation than whole synods receding from the word of God, and then a society which claims for itself but falsely the name of the true church.

Therefore the examination which they are bound to make is not made for the purpose of correcting the meaning of the true church and of finding out a better, as if they were wiser, but to investigate and follow it.

Nor is the right of examination founded in this, that we ought to believe ourselves wiser and more sagacious than entire synods and the whole true church, but rather in this, that since the privilege of infallibility has been granted by God to no church or pastor, nor are we certain whether they who compose ecclesiastical assemblies are members of the true church and faithful servants of God, who are partakers of the Holy Spirit and follow His guidance, nay, it can happen, and it is too often happened, that such assemblies have erred in their decisions.

Hence no other means is left for the believer to know the legitimate authority of these assemblies and the decisions made by them with the certainty of faith than a comparison and examination of them with the word of God, which he not only permits as possible and lawful, but commands as just and necessary.

That cannot, therefore, be considered rashness or pride, which belongs to the execution of an indispensable office imposed upon all believers. Nor under the pretext of avoiding pride ought believers to blind themselves and to divest themselves of their right, in order that their consciences by a blind obedience may be reduced to bondage.

And that's from Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, page 84. Notice the language of Turretin. We are to believe that individual believers, quote, can better find out the meaning of scripture in things necessary to salvation than whole synods receding from the word of God, and then a society which claims for itself but falsely the name of the true church.

Hence no other means is left for the believer to know the legitimate authority of these assemblies and the decisions made by them with the certainty of faith than a comparison and examination of them with the word of God, close quote.

It must not be considered, quote, rashness or pride, which belongs to the execution of an indispensable office. Undeniably, Turretin is arguing that Protestants must appeal to a conscience that is submitted to the scripture and enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The last and highest court of the church is ultimately based upon the spirit of God speaking through the word of God, and not the opinions of corrupt assemblies. Truth is ultimate, and that should never be forgotten.

Obedience to Church Leaders Within Scriptural Limits

Again, Turretin comments, quote, the obedience which he, that is Christ, wishes to be rendered to teachers must always be understood with the condition in as far as the teachers do not prescribe to us another thing than what Christ gave to us in his commands, which they do not do, who arrogate to themselves the right of making new laws.

That's from the Institutes of Lengtic Theology, Volume 3, page 288. Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Hebrews 13, 17.

For although no one denies that we ought to hold in great esteem the pastors and faithful ministers of God who watch for our souls, and that we ought to obey them according to the direction of Paul, Hebrews 13, 17, still it is certain that that obedience and dependency is not absolute and unlimited, which belongs to God and Christ alone, but circumscribed within certain limits, that is, as far as it promotes the glory of God and our safety, and as far as it can consist with the fidelity and obedience due to Christ.

Again, that's Turretin's Institutes of Lengtic Theology, Volume 3, page 244. From Hebrews 13, 17, nothing else can be gathered than that obedience is due to teachers as long as they hear Christ themselves and speak the words of God, otherwise, if they lead us away from Christ, they ought to be anathema to us.

Again, Turretin, from the Institutes, Volume 3, page 289. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

That's the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, section 10. Writing against the Protestant doctrine of private judgment, Mr. Bacon states, quote,. The plea that separatists make, whether on the basis of the priesthood of the believer or the sheep hearing the voice of the shepherd, is ultimately an appeal to private conscience as the last and highest court of the Church.

That's from The Visible Church in the Outer Darkness, page 15. Francis Turretin counters Mr. Bacon's popish notions, quote,. But in affairs of conscience which have reference to faith, piety, and the worship of God, no one can usurp dominion over the conscience, nor are we bound to obey anyone, because otherwise we would be bound to error and impiety, and thus we would incur eternal punishment, and our consciences would be stained with vices without criminality, because we would be bound to obey superiors absolutely.

That's from the Institutes, Volume 3, page 287. George Gillespie also responds, quote,. How be it, even in such cases, when the consent of the Church cannot be had to the execution of this discipline, that is, excommunication, faithful pastors and professors, that is, professing Christians, must every one for his own part take heed that he have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them.

Yea, they ought, in sensu negativo, that is, in a negative sense, excommunicate those who should be, but are not excommunicated positively, which negative excommunication is not an ecclesiastical censure, but either a bare punishment or a caution, and an adversion, that is, warning.

And so says the Archbishop of Spoleto, not only one brother may refuse to communicate with another, but a people also may refuse to communicate with their pastor, which he confirms by certain examples.

But the public censure of positive excommunication should not be inflicted without the Church's consent for the reasons foresaid. And again, that's from A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, page 382.

The Bereans and the Duty of Congregational Discernment

If Mr. Bacon will not allow private individuals to search the Scriptures and ultimately appeal to their own judgment of discretion, to whom does he turn to as a final court of appeal? Mr. Bacon says, quote,.

But it is neither the duty nor the right of private Christians to make determinations of who is ignorant or scandalous. Christ has left this authority in His Church, in the hands of church officers. That's the Visible Church in the Outer Darkness, page 11.

Alas, is this not the teaching of Rome? Individuals do not have the duty nor the right to use the judgment of discretion? What did Turretin just say? What did Gillespie just say? While it is true that Christ has left a judicial authority in His Church, which is to be used by faithful and qualified officers for edification, not destruction, 2 Corinthians 10 .8, that does not alter the fact that the people of God must use their private judgment of discretion to scripturally determine whether or not those officers are faithful or qualified.

While private individuals have no ordinary power to authoritatively judge or determine matters of faith on behalf of the Church, they are duty-bound to examine whether the determinations and decisions of church courts are agreeable with Scripture.

Even the apostles themselves came under such scrutiny. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea, who, coming thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Acts 17, 10 and 11. For Mr. Bacon to assert that, quote, it is neither the duty nor the right of private Christians to make determinations of who is ignorant or scandalous, is to leave that duty to the ministry alone.

If the private Christian does not have the right to make such a determination, what is to be done when the greater part of the ministry is corrupt or when their determinations do not agree with the word of God?

Are private Christians to ignore the truth because, according to Mr. Bacon, they don't have the right to judge who is ignorant or scandalous? Mr. Bacon's teaching leads directly to the conclusion that the authority of the ministry is above the authority of the truth.