Debate on the Meaning of the Church in Reformation Thought — Greg Barrow

The Visible Church and the Marks of the Church

Our controversy with the Papists turns on these hinges. First, they contend that the form of the Church is always apparent and observable. Secondly, they set this form in the seat, that is, the seat of authority, of the Roman Church and its hierarchy.

We, on the contrary, affirm that the Church can exist without any visible appearance, and that its appearance, that is, when it is broadly visible to men, is not contained within that outward magnificence which they foolishly admire.

Rather, it has quite another mark, namely, the pure preaching of God's Word and the lawful administration of the sacraments. They rage if the Church cannot always be pointed to with the finger. But among the Jewish people, how often was it so deformed that no semblance of it remained?

What form do we think it displayed when Elijah complained that he alone was left? How long after Christ's coming was it hidden without form? Hello, I'm Larry Berger. In this quote from the prefatory address to King Francis in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the great reformer and systematizer of the faith, John Calvin, sets forth clearly the classical Protestant doctrine of the Church.

On this tape, you'll be hearing what I believe is the best exposition of this critical doctrine penned by any modern writer, and perhaps by any writer ever. In the hopes of making your listening more profitable, and to enable you to see something of the vital nature of this teaching to the Christian religion, I'd like to demonstrate briefly the importance of this doctrine and press home some applications of it to our walk with the Lord Jesus Christ.

As we see in the above quote, Calvin is contrasting the views of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism concerning the nature of the Church. Charles Hodge, though he ought to be avoided in many areas, does a fine job of explaining this contrast.

The Perpetuity of the Church in Scattered Believers

He states,. At the time of the Reformation, it was constantly urged against the Protestants that they were bound to obey the Church. To this they replied that the Church to which the obedience of the faithful is due was not the Romish or any other external organization, for they had all departed from the faith and taught for doctrines the commandments of men.

To this the Romanists rejoined that if that were true, the Church had perished, for no organized visible society could be pointed out which professed the doctrines avowed by Protestants. To this again the Reformers replied that the perpetuity of the Church, that is, the continual existence of the Church throughout all ages which Christ promised, which all parties admitted, did not require the continued existence of any such society.

The Church might exist and at times had existed in scattered believers. Calvin says, and here Hodge gives the above quote from Calvin, Hodge goes on to say that, Calvin thus called this teaching one of the cardinal doctrines of Protestants, that the Church may be perpetuated in scattered believers, or in other words, that the apostasy of every visible organized society from the true faith is consistent with the perpetuity of the Church.

So why then is this cardinal doctrine of Protestantism so important? How does it practically affect our walk with Christ? Because confusion on this issue brings with it grave consequences which imperil our souls and undermine the unity and purity of Christ's Church.

For example, consider the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25, section 2, where it says that outside of the visible Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. As we'll see, and as is clear from the context, the confession simply means that a profession of the Christian religion is necessary in order for there to be an ordinary possibility of salvation, and that this profession alone is what makes one a member of the visible Church.

Professing the Islamic religion, for instance, does not allow for such a possibility. Modern so-called Protestants, however, pervert the confession on this point, and thereby are dangerously close to promoting the damnable Roman error of substituting the organized visible Church as another mediator between God and man.

The Roman Church, as Hodge alludes, asserts that outside of joining its organized visible society there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Thus, Stephen Pribble, a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, confusedly asserts in his essay, Is Church Membership Optional?, the following, The Westminster Confession of Faith suggests the supreme importance God attaches to the Church by its insistence that outside of it there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Some, as the penitent thief on the cross, may come to saving faith in Christ, but through providential hindrance never have the opportunity formally to join the Church prior to death. But certainly such a case is the exception rather than the rule.

That is why the confession uses the word ordinary. Outside the Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. I would therefore direct a word of brotherly rebuke to pastors and elders like Mr. Pribble, who clearly do not understand the teaching of the very confession of faith they vowed to uphold.

Gentlemen, how can you regard yourselves faithful as overseers of Christ's flock when you are perjured in your ordination vows? This very confession states that we are, quote, to avouch nothing but what we are fully persuaded is the truth, close quote, chapter 22, section 3.

If you don't understand this and other confessional teachings, then you have sworn falsely. And if you do understand the true meaning of the confession on this matter, how can you remain in denominations where this cardinal doctrine of Protestantism is perverted and overthrown?

Are you even bringing charges against those who teach thus falsely and who are themselves perjured? If not, why do you hypocritically insist that Christ's sheep should submit to you in the Lord, thereby submitting themselves to dangerous error?

Submission to Faithful Church Leadership

The chief shepherd, to the contrary, commands, quote, cease my son to hear the instruction that causeth the heir from the words of knowledge, Proverbs 19 .27. Christ's faithful sheep must not and will not sit under your teaching and oversight until such time as you show yourselves to be competent in your understanding and faithful in your application of true Protestant doctrine instead of being those who rend the unity of the church with deadly errors.

Finally, then, I exhort all my brethren who are sitting under such leaders. It is true, as Mr. Pribble asserts, that joining ourselves to a faithful organized church, if one can be found, is not optional, Hebrews 13 .17.

It is equally true, and an unavoidable deduction from this biblical command, that refusing to join an unfaithful organized church is also not optional. If we sit ourselves under leadership who either do not understand the cardinal doctrines of Protestants, or, worse yet, who understand such doctrines but refuse to act accordingly, we are not putting ourselves in the path of Christ's blessings but in the way of his judgments.

As he says, let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch, Matthew 15 .14. It is our responsibility to judge our leaders and their doctrine by the word of God, and to submit only to such as are found sound and faithful, for we are to submit ever and only in the Lord.

God alone is the Lord of the conscience, the Confession, chapter 20, section 2. Our kind Heavenly Father has preserved for us the faithful expositions of his word in the writings of our Protestant forefathers.

Let us give careful heed, then, as Greg Barrow sets before us their scriptural teachings, to the end that both erring elders and flocks, as well as those who in obedience to Christ reject such dangerous leaders, may know the truth, that the truth may set us free.

One Mark of the Essentially True Visible Church

The classical Protestant doctrine of the Church, being chapter 2 of Greg Barrow's book The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics. Misrepresentation number 2. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, PRCE, denounces true churches and maintains that they are the only duly constituted church upon the face of the earth.

In his defense departed, Mr. Bacon asserts, The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, Session, do not believe themselves compelled to answer in any church court, for they have, in their exaggerated opinion, the only truly constituted church court to be found upon the face of the earth today.

See Letter of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, Clerk of Session, and Brian Schwartley's warning. And again, the error into which you have fallen is serious, and until you come out of the little group which claims that they alone, of all the inhabitants of the earth, have a true constitutional church, you will continue attached to the dead body of human tradition.

Mr. Bacon's charges are scandalously unqualified. When one reads such unqualified statements as, they have, in their exaggerated opinion, the only truly constituted church court to be found upon the face of the earth today, or, until you come out of the little group which claims that they alone, of all the inhabitants of the earth, have a true constitutional church, often there is a very natural inclination to an intensely negative response.

This language represents us as thinking very highly of ourselves and very poorly of others, and is designed to lead the injudicious reader to substitute passion for reasoned judgment. This accomplished, it is then very unlikely that the reader will notice that the statements of Mr. Bacon are entirely unqualified.

What does he mean by true constitutional court, or true constitutional church? Does he mean constitutionally true as to the being of the church, or constitutionally true as to the well-being of the church?

Shouldn't he define what he means before publicly making such a serious accusation? Instead, he begins and ends his defense departed without ever qualifying these terms. He leaves it to the imagination and emotion of the reader to wonder whether the PRCE thinks they are the only Christian church on earth.

These unqualified statements are a telling example of what Mr. Bacon has asked the public to digest. By not defining the terms in his accusations, he has asked his readers to swallow his unannounced assumptions with a certain degree of implicit faith.

Because of Mr. Bacon's serious disregard for these relevant qualifications, and because some may have been beguiled into believing this false report concerning us, I believe it would be most prudent to first inform the reader of our disposition toward those brethren who disagree with us.

Following that, I will proceed with a direct response to these erroneous charges. Our Disposition Toward Those Who Disagree With Us. On the 7th of May, 1741, the Mount Herrick Declaration was published after receiving sanction from the Correspondences and General Meeting of the United Societies.

The spirit of our covenanted brethren echoes our own sentiments and disposition toward those of our brethren who differ from us. In this quote, we declare our esteem of and love for all the godly in these lands who have the root of the matter in them, and love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, who are studying godliness and have sad hearts for the tokens of God's sad displeasure, and the sins and abominations procuring the same, notwithstanding of their not being of the same sentiments and mind with us as to some parts of our testimony and practice.

And that's cited from Matthew Hutchison, the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland. We have neither stated nor do we believe that those who profess the true religion and their children, the Visible Church Universal, are only those who agree with us on every point of doctrine or practice.

We do, however, fully concur with our Confession of Faith, which states, Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification, as also in relieving each other in outward things according to their several abilities and necessities, which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

That's the Confession of Faith, chapter 26, section 2. In the Universal Visible Church there are many true sons and daughters of God who have never even considered some of the questions we are now disputing.

We fully concur with Pastor David Steele when he says, Yes, unto them which believe Christ is precious, and I never question that he is so to multitudes who never heard of the British Covenants, but I grieve when these are lightly called the old covenants by those under the obligation of them.

And that's from David Steele's Reminiscences. We in the PRCE love all the brethren who will not obstinately and willfully speak or act contrary to the truth of God's word, with an approving love that is desirous of intimate Christian communion.

We also love those who call themselves brethren, who willfully and obstinately speak or act contrary to the truly professed religion, with a love of benevolence that is desirous of their correction and restoration to the truth.

We love all men as they are created in God's image, with a love of benevolence, desiring their regeneration and conversion in Christ by the grace of God. We have no desire to condemn the innocent or acquit the guilty, and so, according to God's holy will, we must make every attempt to speak the truth in love.

While we endeavor to steer clear of indiscriminate censure of those guilty of defection, we at all times must pray for the resolve and perseverance to speak clearly against the sins of the day. Recognizing that all beloved believers have one and the same God and Father, we must also at the same time never become slack in distinguishing between truth and heresy in doctrine, and faithfulness and defection in practice.

If, for the sake of peace, we are indifferent to heresy, or if, out of a false sense of love, we fail to correct the scandalous, we directly dishonor our Savior and suffer our neighbor to remain either ignorantly or obstinately in sin.

It is simply because we love both our Savior and our brethren that we have adopted the position of our faithful forefathers, as it is agreeable to the alone, infallible standard of God's word. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.

Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the Lord. Leviticus 19, 17 and 18. All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory.

And being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as to conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.

That's the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 26, section 1. This is the temper of earnest Christians who appreciate the gift of God in others. When our brethren speak truly, act faithfully, and make righteous rulings, we rejoice in the truth.

When a credible Christian profession is joined with faithful contending, we thank God for His mercy upon His children. Undeniably, Mr. Bacon's heated and unwarranted attacks have quenched the expression of love once shared by his congregation and ours, and it is my hope that a way can be found to overcome this obstacle.

We pray that God would bring to the remembrance of all contending parties that which we once enjoyed in each other, and that even through these disagreements, God would grant us the grace to hold out hope for reconciliation.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Proverbs 13, 12. Though the PRCE is presently isolated from many independent congregations and denominations, though not from the universal visible Church, we long for the communion and fellowship that only true, like-minded Christian unity can produce.

We long for the day of reconciliation and agreement, a day when our present divisions will be healed and our protests will become unnecessary. Our prayer and our contending is for a covenanted Protestant unity of national Presbyterian churches who would work together to rule the universal visible Church of Christ in truth, and we believe that this cause is most consistent with the biblical love of our triune God towards mankind.

And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

Isaiah 2, verse 2. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace, day nor night. Ye that make mention of the Lord keep not silence, and give him no rest till he establish, until he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.

Isaiah 62, verses 6 and 7. Please do not be fooled by Mr. Bacon's misrepresentations. Our love for the brethren is both sincere and genuine. Please judge us according to our own words and not according to the words and motives falsely imputed to us by Mr. Bacon and others.

Having cleared our disposition toward others, I will now proceed directly to the issue at hand. Does the PRCE denounce true churches and maintain that it is the only duly constituted church upon the face of the earth?

Defining the True State of the Question

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. Unless one is so naive as to think that every man who calls himself a minister is truly a minister of Christ, or that every group of people that call themselves a church is actually a true church, then one is left to discern which ministers and churches are true and which are false.

Repeatedly our Lord warned the church to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing and schismatic heretics who would come into the church of God to deceive the simple and to cause division. To testify openly against error is a moral and perpetual obligation binding upon all faithful churches and ministers.

In so doing, they are fulfilling their primary function as disciples of Christ by witnessing for the truth and contending against error. As one approaches this delicate topic, it becomes clear, even at the most early stages of investigation, that sweeping generalizations must give way to careful and precise distinctions.

THE TRUE STATE OF THE QUESTION. Seeing that the PRCE has been charged with denouncing true churches and claiming to be the world's only truly constituted church, an obvious question arises. What does Mr. Bacon mean by true churches or truly constituted churches?

What distinctions, if any, is he making when he uses these terms? Does he mean that we are denouncing true churches as to their essence or being? Or does he mean we are denouncing true churches as to their well-being?

Is he saying that we profess to be the only Christian church in the world? Or is he charging us with something else? Mr. Bacon's only serious attempt at qualification appears when he quotes the 18th chapter of the 1560 Scottish Confession of Faith and one sentence from Samuel Rutherford's The Due Right of Presbyteries.

He concludes from these two quotations that QUOTE Rutherford did not leave us to guess if he understood the true church as the 1560 Scots Confession understood it or if he agreed with the Steelites. CLOSE QUOTE.

Hereby, he implies that the PRCE's understanding of the true church differs significantly from that of Rutherford and the 1560 Scottish Confession of Faith. To clear up Mr. Bacon's ambiguity and error, I intend to prove from the above-mentioned quotation that Samuel Rutherford was talking about a true church as to its being while the 1560 Scottish Confession of Faith was talking about a true church as to its well-being.

Next, I intend to prove that each of these sources taken in their proper context agree precisely with the doctrine of the PRCE. Please note carefully, Mr. Bacon's primary assumption and error is exhibited when he asserts that the Church of Christ essentially considered is to be defined by three marks, that is, the true preaching of the word, the right administration of the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered.

I contend that the true visible Church of Christ essentially considered is to be defined by one single mark, that is, the profession of the true religion. Much, therefore, depends upon who is correct in answering the following question.

What marks are essential to the being of the visible church? When Mr. Bacon's error in answering this question is exposed, his one foundation stone concerning the visible church is removed and his whole house of misrepresentations comes tumbling down.

The doctrinal position of the PRCE regarding the being and the well-being of the church as it relates to the term true church. One mark alone is sufficient to constitute an essentially true visible church, the profession of the true religion.

We use this mark to distinguish between a Christian church and a non-Christian church. There is an important distinction to be made between the being, or esse, of a church and its well-being, bene esse.

Dear reader, please always keep this distinction in mind or you will fail to understand both the scriptures and the reformers and the men of the PRCE on this vital matter. What is necessary to the being of a true church is something considerably different from what is necessary to its well-being.

Since the term true church can be applied to both its being and well-being, it is absolutely imperative to qualify which true church one is referring to, especially when making public charges. Speaking of a true church as being essentially true tells us that a church is Christian as opposed to pagan, while speaking of a true church relative to its well-being tells us whether a particular Christian church is being faithful to God's word, while the former distinguishes between the church and the world, the latter distinguishes between the faithful and the unfaithful churches among those bodies which profess Christianity.

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

James Bannerman explains, quote,. We recognize this distinction every day in regard to a Christian man, and it is no less to be recognized in its application to Christian society. There is many a doctrine and truth of revelation in regard to which a man may err without ceasing on that account to be a Christian man, and there may be many a duty recognized in Scripture as binding upon all in which he may be totally deficient without forfeiting his Christianity.

In other words, there is much in doctrine and duty, in faith and practice, necessary to the perfection of a believer, which is not necessary to the existence of a believer as such, and so it is with a Christian church.

What is essential to its existence as a church is something very different from what is essential to its perfection as a church. This distinction is of considerable value and not difficult under the teaching of Scripture to be applied.

We read in Scripture that the Christian church is the pillar and ground of the truth and that for this cause the Son of God himself came that he might bear witness to the truth. In other words, we learn that the very object for which the church of Christ was established on the earth was to declare and uphold the truth.

Judging then by this first test, we are warranted in saying that to hold and to preach the true faith or doctrine of Christ is the only sure and infallible note or mark of the Christian church because this is the one thing for the sake of which a church of Christ has been instituted on earth.

A true faith makes a true church and a corrupt faith a corrupt church, and should it at any time apostatize from the true faith altogether, it would, by the very act, cease to be a church of Christ in any sense at all.

The church was established for the sake of the truth and not the truth for the sake of the church. For this thing, then, the church of Christ was instituted, and this thing, or the declaration of the truth, must therefore be, in its nature and importance, paramount to the church itself.

Again we read in Scripture that Christ gave some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

In other words, we learn that ordinances and office-bearers have been established for the object of promoting the well-being and edification of the church. These things, then, that is, the ordinances and ministry, unlike the former, that is, the truth, were instituted for the sake of the church and not the church for the sake of them, and these things, that is, the ordinances and the ministry, therefore must be, in their nature and importance, subordinate to the church.

And that's from The Church of Christ, Volume 1. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, Section 2, defines an essentially true church as having one mark, that is, the profession of the true religion.

The idea that there is one mark that alone distinguishes the being of a church from its well-being is clearly and plainly taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where it states,. The visible church, which is also Catholic or universal under the Gospel, not confined to one nation as before under the law, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

That's the Confession, Chapter 25, Section 2. Likewise, the larger Catechism, Question 62, questions,. What is the visible church? Answer,. The visible church is a society made up of all such, as in all ages and places of the world, do profess the true religion, and of their children.

Notice that the only mark mentioned as necessary for the existence or being of a true visible church is the profession of the true religion. According to the Westminster Divines, this is the single mark that distinguishes Christian churches from pagan churches.

By using this mark, we can determine whether a body of people meeting together for worship are to be considered Christian in any sense. The Reformers, by applying this single mark to the Roman Catholic Church, called her a true church as to essence or being, and correctly distinguished her from the Turks or pagans.

For example, commenting on Jeremiah 15, verse 16, John Calvin writes,. Quote,. The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all who are deemed his people, as it was formerly given to the whole seed of Abraham, so it is at this day conferred on all who are consecrated to his name by holy baptism, and who boast themselves to be Christians and the sons of the church, and this belongs even to the papists.

That's from Calvin's commentaries. Another excellent Reform scholar, Francis Turretin, defines the essentially true church, esse, as having one mark, that is, the profession of Christianity and gospel truth.

Quote,. The church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view, either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of gospel truth which it retains, or papal, with regard to subjection to the Pope and corruptions and capital errors in faith as well as morals, which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the word of God.

We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it, but in the latter, under which it is regarded here, we deny it can be called Christian and apostolic, but anti-Christian and apostate.

And that's from Turretin's Institutes of Elanctic Theology, Volume 3. Here the church of Rome, which retains the single mark, a profession of gospel truth, is designated a true church when compared to pagans.

Turretin, like Calvin, is saying that in the Roman Catholic Church there remains a possibility of salvation which is not true in a pagan group. And in this sense, he is willing to call them a Christian church, a true church essential, or a truly constituted church.

On the other hand, Turretin makes it clear that when he considers the Catholic Church as papal, he designates her a false church and anti-Christian. Notice here that by distinguishing between the being and well-being of the church of Rome, Turretin calls them a true church as to being and a false church as to well-being at the same time.

It is significant to recognize this point, which to some seems like a contradiction throughout the writings of the Reformers. A true church can, at the same time, be considered true in one sense while false in another.

In this case, Turretin is saying that though the Romish Church is essentially Christian, esse, it has strayed so far from its Christian foundation that it must be called false, bene esse. Samuel Rutherford defines the essentially true church as having only one mark, that is, the profession of the truth and doctrine of godliness.

Quote,. A visible profession of the truth and doctrine of godliness is that which essentially constitutes a visible church and every member of the visible church. And that's taken from Rutherford's do-right of Presbyteries.

To properly examine what Samuel Rutherford meant by this statement, we must do more than Mr. Bacon when he simply cites one quote and then boldly asserts that Rutherford agrees with him. Mr. Bacon has asked us to believe that Rutherford is in total agreement with the 18th chapter of the Scottish Confession of Faith while the so-called Steelites are in disagreement with both Rutherford and the Confession.

I believe and will establish that Samuel Rutherford was in agreement with the 1560 Scottish Confession of Faith but for very different reasons than Mr. Bacon sets forth. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that he has grossly erred regarding his doctrine of the church primarily because he does not understand the reformer's distinction between the being and the well-being of the church.

Consequently, this particular error will be shown to be the foundation of the destructive misrepresentations set forth in his defense departed. Let's begin with what Rutherford and others do not mean when they teach that a visible profession of truth and doctrine of godliness is that which essentially constitutes a visible church.

What Is Not Essential to the Being of the Visible Church

Number one, Rutherford shows that actual saving faith is not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church. Quote, that which is unseen is the form and essence of an invisible church and that which is visible must be the essential form of a visible church.

That's again from The Do-Right of Presbyteries. A second quote, and whereas our divines say that the church is invisible because faith which is the specific and constitutive form of the church is invisible and known only to God, the searcher of hearts, that's from Rutherford's survey of the survey of that sum of church discipline.

Two, ministers, elders, and deacons are not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church. In 1646, an anonymous work entitled Just Divinum Regimenus Ecclesiasticae or The Divine Right of Church Government was published.

Its authorship is generally attributed to either Westminster divines themselves, likely the London Covenanted Presbyterians, or those who closely sympathized with them. It is ironic that this book refutes its own publisher, Naftali Press, who also publishes Bacon's works, on this vital point, the very crux of the controversy.

Quote,. There are degrees of necessity. Some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a church, as matter and form, that is, visible saints and a due profession of faith and obedience to Christ according to the gospel.

Thus it is possible a church may be and yet want both deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for a time. Some things are only respectively necessary to the well-being of a church.

Thus officers are necessary, yet some more than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and miserably imperfect. That's from the Divine Right of Church Government. Three, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church.

Quote,. Abraham called with his house to leave idolatry, obeyed the calling, building an altar to the Lord, Genesis 12, 1 -18, professes and teaches as a prophet the doctrine of the covenant, and God appearing revealed the gospel unto him, Genesis 12, 1 -3, and Genesis 15, 4 -7.

And so he and his house are a visible church, when, not while, many years after, and until he was ninety and nine, the seal of circumcision was ordained and given to him in his house, Genesis 17, 1 -3.

And that is from Samuel Rutherford's survey of the survey of that sum of church discipline. And again another Rutherford quote,. And the church is a true visible church in the wilderness, which yet wanted, that is lacked, circumcision and the Passover forty years in the wilderness, Joshua 5, verses 5 -7.

This proves that there is a true visible church where Christ is, and yet wanteth, the ordinary seals, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. Again from survey of the survey. Four, Church discipline is not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church.

Quote,. But a church may retain the essence and being of a visible church, and yet have no discipline in actual use, or little, and though want, that is lack of discipline, do leaven a church, yet it does not, as Robinson says, evert the nature thereof, and turn it into Babylon and a den of dragons.

That's from the do-right of Presbyteries. To summarize, Rutherford and others do not make actual saving faith, ministry, sacraments, or church discipline necessary to the existence of a true church, essentially considered.

Why? Because saving faith is the essence of the invisible church, and does not pertain to the definition of the true visible church, and because ministry, sacraments, and discipline, while necessary and profitable for the well-being of the church, are not necessary to its existence or being.

Seeing that Rutherford removes all of these things from his definition of an essentially true church, what is left to include? One mark, and one mark alone, is necessary to the definition of a true church, essa, that is, profession of the truth.

Quote,. A visible profession of the truth and doctrine of godliness is that which essentially constitutes a visible church and every member of the visible church. From the do-right of Presbyteries. Again, quote,.

Truth of doctrine concurs to give being to the church and to the constitution of it. From Rutherford's do-right of Presbyteries. Quote again,. Any sort of profession, whether by an avowing of that gospel to one another, or suffering for it, even when the shepherds are smitten and the flock is scattered, is a very practical and speaking mark that such a company is a true church.

From Rutherford's Survey of the Survey. And finally again, from Survey of the Survey,. And yet, if these may be, to wit, hearing and profess receiving, here is an essential mark by which persons before they receive seals are made members and visible disciples, and societies visible and churches essentially differenced.

One, essentially differenced from all the false churches visible upon the earth who have not the sound of the word preached and professedly heard and visibly received. And two, from all civil societies.

Three, from all pagan and heathen societies on earth. Therefore, they were a distinct Christian society differenced essentially. And if they should all die before they had been baptized or had received the seals, they have been true visible church members.

And if killed for the truth, they had died visible professing martyrs and the called church of Christ. It is to be carefully observed that like James Bannerman, the Westminster Divines, and Francis Turreton, Samuel Rutherford also taught the distinction between the being and the well-being of a true church.

By one single mark he distinguishes the true church from false churches who have no profession of the truth, from all civil societies, and from all pagan societies on earth. We can now confidently affirm that Rutherford's definition of the essentially true church is exceedingly broad.

By his definition, there are many true churches upon the earth. Samuel Rutherford was simply saying that one mark was necessary to distinguish an essentially true church from a pagan church, which is precisely what the PRCE is saying.