Debate: Protestant Antidote to Modern Disunity (2/5) Protestant Fundamentals of Separation and Unity — Greg Barrow

This is tape two of the protestant antidote to modern schismatical disunity being chapter four of Greg Barrow's book the covenanted Reformation defended against contemporary schismatics narrated by Larry Berger.

Please note that this entire book is free on Stillwater survival books website www .swrv .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 seven eight zero four five zero three seven three zero or by email at swrb at swrb .com. These tapes are not copyrighted and we therefore encourage you to copy and distribute them to any and all you believe would be benefited.

Historical Testimony as a Term of Communion

We continue our reading. A triple standard in the Reformation Presbyterian Church. In defense departed. Mr. Bacon states quote. Let it simply be recorded that the act declaration and testimony is itself a book over 200 pages and expatiates in steelite terms the acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland from the year 1638 to the year 1649 inclusive.

That book contains an additional 500 plus pages of historical rulings acts and testimonies. Of course that material contains references to still other material and so forth. If that amount of reading seems to our readers like a tremendous overhead to require of Christians before admitting them to the Lord's table.

Then our readers agree with us from defense departed. Contrary to what he asserts in defense departed in his forgotten letter fully cited in appendix a of the Covenanted Reformation defended Mr. Bacon says that he requires the following of his officers as terms of ministerial communion.

Quote. We the undersigned ministers and elders of the Free Church of Scotland considering that the Constitution of the said Church as settled in 1843 is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith as approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647.

The first and second books of discipline the larger and shorter catechisms. The claim declaration and protest 1842. The protest of 1843 the act of separation and deed of demission executed in the last mentioned year the formula appointed to be subscribed by Probationers before receiving license and by all office bearers at the time of their admission together with the questions appointed to be put to the same parties at ordination and admission and the acts of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland prior to 1843 and that's from the deed of separation cited from a manual of practice in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Based on the practice of the Church of Scotland in our several courts fourth edition as revised in 1886 pages 116 to 117.

Is it not abundantly evident that mr. Bacon requires even more explicit historical testimony of his ministers elders deacons and probationers. Than the so-called steelites. Are these not terms of ministerial communion.

Are his elders and deacons not members of his congregation? How does he explain requiring historical testimony as a term of communion for his officers while excluding his congregation from the same? Standard while at the same time vilifying faithful Covenanters for practicing the same principle.

What hypocrisy? Dear reader this again is a gross oversight on his part. He has again condemned himself and undone most of his own argument in defense departed with this one glaring inconsistency. Sadly it gets worse.

Personal Profession and Ministerial Vows

Contradicting himself again, mr. Bacon sets forth yet another standard of communion this time apparently for non-officers when he says. Quote. This point in the six terms of communion seems like a reasonable place to put something about a personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

After all in acts 837 that was the only term of communion that Philip the evangelist seemed concerned to enforce again from defense departed. Which is it mr. Bacon. On the one hand you call for a simple profession of faith as the only term of communion for your members and on the Other you require your officers to swear ordination vows that include hundreds of pages of historical testimony.

Let the reader note that mr. Bacon is clearly speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Again, I ask are his elders and deacons not members of his church. Do they have some special status and requirement for admittance to the Lord's table that his members do not share?

Clearly mr. Bacon requires historical testimony for his ministerial terms of communion, but simple profession for the rest of his members and visitors. Are the substance of the RPC's ordination vows not the same as his terms of communion?

What would happen to an officer of the FPC are if they obstinately and willfully opposed the acts of General Assembly FPC our session or any of the historical deeds cited above. What would happen if they obstinately broke any one of their ordination vows?

Would they not be judged scandalous and barred from communion until such time as they repented? Therefore the substance of the RPC's ordination vows are clearly terms of communion. Although. Mr. Bacon doesn't seem to realize it yet.

The Alleged Triple Standard of Church Discipline

Next if a minister elder or deacon could not come to the communion table in the FPC FPC are because of obstinately speaking against one of the above-mentioned articles. Why would it be all right for a member of the church to do so?

Does mr. Bacon advocate one standard of faith for his elders and a different standard of faith for his members? Are there two or three different moral standards in the Reformation Presbyterian Church?

It appears so. The members of the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett are not even required to swear to endeavor to uphold their own church standards before coming to communion. This triple standard such as is commonly practiced in the Christian churches of our nation.

Makes a popish distinction between the clergy and the laity. The same terms of communion ought to apply to officers and members alike. May members of the FPC are come to the communion table if they obstinately teach pre-millennialism to others.

How about if they teach others that singing exclusively psalms in public worship is wrong and singing hymns with instrumental accompaniment in public worship is right. Apparently these people can come to mr. Bacon's communion table since according to mr. Bacon a simple profession of faith like the Ethiopian eunuch is the only term of agreement necessary.

How does mr. Bacon reconcile that with the fact that he believes that teaching such doctrines are scandalous. Will he allow those who are openly scandalous doctrinally to his communion table? Yes, it appears so since he desires to be so generous more generous than Scripture.

Has to allow a simple profession of faith to be his only term of communion. Furthermore not only is there a Romish distinction made between the clergy and the laity. But in reality visitors who come to Rowlett are judged with one standard while the congregation is judged with another the members of the congregation of FPC are would be censured for obstinately and publicly promoting such doctrine as dispensationalism Arminianism independency, etc.

While a visitor from a Baptist Arminian or independent church would be welcomed at the communion table based upon their simple profession of faith. Why shouldn't Arminian ministers and visitors be allowed to come to the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett if a simple profession of faith is All that is required and if they are not welcome to the communion table of the FPC are then we must ask why not?

Surely most Arminians will say as much as the Ethiopian eunuch. As You can see false doctrine breeds confusion and tyranny in the discipline of the church. True liberty of conscience is destroyed by popish practice lurking under the cloak of tolerance and pretended unity.

Ministers have communion on one standard members on another and finally visitors on yet another each. Descending standard becomes more latitudinarian and more damaging to the preservation of sound doctrine and uniform practice.

The Ethiopian Eunuch and the Terms of Communion

Does mr. Bacon really require the simple profession of faith of the Ethiopian eunuch acts 835 through 37. Does mr. Bacon only have one simple term of communion. His terms of communion are never explicitly stated though I will attempt to infer what he requires from his defense departed his practice So contradicts his principle that it is hard to tell what he believes.

Nevertheless, it will become clear as we proceed that mr Bacon's thinking is so far off that even if we give him every benefit of the doubt he will still be left holding to papist principles. An Examination of mr. Bacon's principles in regards to his terms of communion.

Mr. Bacon system of toleration can be deduced from the words of his own mouth when he says. One in quoting the 1560 confession in defense of the PRCE status as a true Church of Christ. We do not mean that we agree with the terms of communion of the of the PRCE or that everyone.

The section of the PRCE has barred from the communion table has been justly so barred. We believe their view of closed communion to be an error. But we do not believe it is an error that prevents them from rightly being called a true true Church of Christ.

To note also what a far cry steals position regarding the necessity of uninspired history as part of the terms of communion is. From the simple profession of faith at the Ethiopian eunuch and of Peter 3.

This point in the six terms of communion seems like a reasonable place to put something about a personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ. After all in Acts 8 37, that was the only term of communion that Philip the evangelist seemed concerned to enforce for finally Paul teaches that females who have been baptized into Christ are also communicant members of the church and.

That quote was taken from Bacon's book. What mean ye by this service appendix. A all the others are from defense departed five like Paul. I fear that these human additions to the requirements of the Lord's table are corrupting minds from the simplicity that is in Christ.

From these quotes we can deduce that mr. Bacon holds the following position regarding terms of communion. First. Negatively. A he does not agree with the six terms of communion of the VR CE and believes our view of close communion to be an error to positively a personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ was all that Philip required as a term of communion and He the eunuch answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God acts 837.

B. Though, mr. Bacon does not explicitly say which profession of Peter he was referring to. I think it is reasonable to infer that he meant Peter's simple profession of faith as found in Matthew 6 16 16.

And Simon Peter answered and said thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. See all who are baptized are to be admitted to communion except of course infants and children who have not made a profession of faith.

This is significant in that except as it applies to covenant children mr. Bacon is equating the qualifications necessary for both baptism and the Lord's Supper. As the reader shall see in the following examination this is a serious error.

D human additions to the requirements of the Lord's table are corrupting minds from the simplicity of Christ. First I would note that the Ethiopian eunuch did not receive communion, but was simply baptized in Acts 8 36 through 38.

The reader is asked to consult the passage to see if this has anything to do with admission to the Lord's Supper. The only reason mr. Bacon would cite this in regard to terms of communion would be because he because he equates the qualifications for baptism and communion.

And as they went on their way they came unto a certain water and the eunuch said see here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized. And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.

And he answered and said I? Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still and they went down both into the water. Both Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him acts 8 36 through 38.

Baptism, Church Membership, and Particular Communion

Naftali press has done an excellent job of republishing the classic book entitled just a venom regimen a Ecclesiastical that is the divine right of church government by the London ministers and Therein we are furnished with an applicable commentary to undo mr. Bacon's ill-conceived notions regarding the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.

One would hope that in the future mr. Bacon's publisher would instruct him more clearly in what is republished books contain. Quote. Besides by the ordinance of baptism. We are all admitted into one body the general visible Church first Corinthians 1212.

And. Some were baptized into the general body that thereby were not admitted into any particular church as the eunuch in Acts 8. And that's from page 69 of the Naftali edition of just a venom. How do terms of communion apply to someone who has yet to be admitted to a particular church?

How would the eunuch partake of communion outside of a particular church? Furthermore Peter's profession Matthew 16 16 is Entirely unrelated to a communion service. Neither of these instances provide mr. Bacon with any proof of his position.

Second I would point out that by his own words Mr. Bacon appears to require nothing more than a simple profession of faith to admit someone to the Lord's table a Simple profession of which particular statements of faith.

He doesn't say I Assume that this profession would have to include at least some of the so-called simple fundamentals of the faith. One would hope that he would at least inquire as to whether someone is Trinitarian Believes the Bible is God's Word or whether the prospective communicant believes in the bodily return of our Lord and Savior.

Whatever his minimal standard is we can by his own words as cited above Reasonably inferred that mr. Bacon is promoting is promoting an extreme form of latitudinarian communion and Conversely that he unabashedly denounces the idea of a close communion.

Latitudinarian Communion and Church Unity

John Anderson comments on this latitudinarian scheme. Quote. In the first place it is a sectarian communion. Its existence supposes that there are sects and parties in the Catholic that is universal Church.

And that the variety of men's opinions habits and feelings is sufficient to justify the continuance of them. Scriptural sacramental communion that is close communion admits of no sex. Requiring all partakers of it to be one bread one body Perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In the second place It is an unfaithful and dishonest scheme. It is unfaithful to the Lord Jesus. For under pretend the pretext of expressing love to him at his table It regards the denial of some of his truths or institutions.

However, openly or obstinately persisted in has a trivial matter deserving no church censure. When the advocates for this scheme represent the truths and institutions of Christ that are publicly opposed by corrupt churches as sectarian And local peculiarities they are charged.

They are chargeable with great unfaithfulness to the Lord Christ to these churches and to the whole Catholic Church. They are chargeable with attempting to heal the wound of God's people slightly saying peace peace while there is no peace.

Thirdly it is a backsliding scheme. There is nothing more incumbent on a particular church than steadfastness in maintaining all the articles of divine truth stated in her confession and testimony. But as soon as the practice obtains in any particular church of having sacramental communion with the open and open and obstinate opposers of any of these articles that church thereby falls from her steadfastness and is chargeable in some measure with apostasy.

And that's from Anderson's Alexander and Rufus pages 93 to 94. Hence we teach that all churches which do not base their communion upon faithful and explicit terms of agreement are to be with avoided and withdrawn from.

Now I beseech you brethren mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which he have learned and avoid them Romans 16 17. Sadly mr. Bacon says we believe their view of closed communion to be an error.

Therefore I without any reservation Maintain that mr. Bacon is a minister who ought to be avoided and withdrawn from his scheme is unfaithful and leads the children of God into Backsliding and sectarian sin.

It is an inherently schismatic view and we will not and cannot countenance such ministers who are dividing and wounding the Church of Jesus Christ. Third we in the PRC e teach that the ground of the church's profession is based upon God's Word alone.

Though we recognize that the acts and modes of preserving and maintaining the true religion in the visible church as to well-being are necessarily human Mr. Bacon in his arrogance and ignorance Labels us as Popes and Pharisees for adhering to human constitutions that are agreeable to the Word of God By means of our terms of communion We are simply explaining and applying our alone infallible rule of faith while neither adding nor detracting from its authority.

Why does mr. Bacon deride us for that which is unavoidable especially when he clearly does the same thing? Thomas McCree powerfully explains quote. But while the matter as well as the ground of the church's profession is properly speaking divine The acts and modes of professing and maintaining it are necessarily human.

When false and corrupt views of Christianity become general it is necessary that confessions of the truth in opposition to them be Embodied in formal and written documents, which may be known and read by all men.

Boxy miss a parrot litter a script of manate. That is a voice sent forth disappears a written letter remains. It is not enough that Christians confess their faith Individually to comply with divine commands to answer to their character as church members and the better to gain the ends in view.

It is requisite that they make a joint and common confession. When the truths contained in the Word of God have been explicitly stated and declared in opposition to existing errors by the proper authority in a church an Approbation of such statements and declarations may be required as a test of soundness in the faith in Christian fidelity.

Without any unwarrantable imposition on conscience or the most distant reflection on the perfection of Scripture. The same arguments which justify the use of creeds and confessions will also justify particular Declarations or testimonies directed against errors and corruptions prevailing in churches which still retain scriptural formularies.

Those who allow the former cannot consistently condemn the latter. It is not sufficient to entitle persons to the character of faithful witnesses of Christ. That they profess a general adherence to the Bible or a sound confession of faith.

Provided they refuse or decline to direct and apply these seasonably against present evils. It might as well be said that the soldier has acquitted himself Well in battle because he had excellent armor lying in a magazine or a sword hanging by a side.

Although he never brought forth the armor nor drew the sword from its scabbard. The means alluded to are the unsheathing of the sword and the wielding of the armor of the church. So far from setting aside the authority of Scripture they are necessary for keeping a sense of it alive on the spirits of men and For declaring the joint views and animating the combined endeavors of those who adhere to it.

By explaining and applying a rule we do not add to it nor do we detract from its authority and that's from unit McCree's unity of the church pages 135 to 137 and that's the Presbyterian heritage publications reprint.

Liberty of Conscience and Human Constitutions

Mr. Bacon charges us with requiring implicit faith when he says quote the PRC. He has adopted this entire line of thinking by the approach of first accept the doctrine then you can understand it later.

But this is the very kind of implicit faith required by Rome and condemned by our confession. Where in chapter 20 section 2 it states the requiring of an implicit faith and an absolute and blind Obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also and that's from defense departed.

In reality, it is mr. Bacon's latitudinarian communion that is founded in ignorance delusion and blind obedience. Consequently, it is his pretended unity that attacks true liberty of conscience. Mr. Bacon's solution is one in which Christians are to attend the Lord's Supper based upon simple profession or fundamentals only.

The distinction between what is fundamental and non-fundamental is not made in the Word of God and thus remains vague and arbitrary in the minds of church officers. This emphasis upon the necessary truths of Scripture while helpful to didactic theology is not useful.

Indeed it is dangerous in this connection. When applied to the communion table the tendency of this emphasis is to lead others to consider that some truths of Scripture are of little or no importance.

Consequently, these little truths are considered too minute to be contended for and they are relegated to the realms of indifferency and minutia. Those who promote this unscriptural emphasis constantly whine about conscientious Christians being overly concerned with so-called minutia Such as singing psalms Sabbath keeping and instrumental music in public worship.

Under the cloak of charity forbearance and peace the so-called neutral principle of upholding the fundamentals Only becomes a law by which the tolerance of all others is judged. The law of communion by fundamentals only not being founded upon nor determinable by Scripture Becomes a law to be believed upon the authority of the church only and thus a certain degree of blind obedience is required to observe it.

This is the scheme proposed by Mr. Bacon and as we have observed repeatedly his own accusations are continually recoiling upon his own head. According to his principles and to his law of communion by fundamentals only he should be holding communion with the Church of Rome.

He makes the supposed state of an individual profession the rule by which one is received or rejected and Denies that the communion table is fenced by the doctrinal and practical practical testimony of the church corporate.

When a Roman Catholic comes to his communion table and professes personal faith like the Ethiopian eunuch Mr. Bacon should if he were to be consistent with his doctrine receive this Roman Catholic professor.

If he allows a Roman Catholic to partake individually I cannot see what would stop him from proceeding to the logical conclusion of actually partaking with the Church of Rome herself. This law of simple profession is simply a dangerous error.

Which shifts the ground of external church communion from a corporate agreement in faith and practice? To a law requiring the toleration of sectarian individual doctrine and practice. The concealment of truth for the sake of peace is certainly as dangerous as an outright propagation of lies.

The Dangers of Latitudinarian Union

Latitudinarian schemes of communion though often coupled with the best intentions are direct assaults upon the Christian liberty of God's people and the purity of the visible church the danger of latitudinarian schemes of union and fellowship.

Thomas McCree further explains, and this is a lengthy quote. Mournful as the divisions of the church are and anxious as all its genuine friends must be to see them cured. It is their duty to examine carefully the plans which may be proposed for attaining this desirable end.

We must not do evil that good may come and there are sacrifices too costly to be made for the pure procuring of peace with fellow Christians. Is it necessary to remind you that unity and peace are not always good nor a sure and infallible mark of a true and pure church.

We know that there is a church which has long boasted of her Catholic unity not Withstanding all the corruptions which pollute her communion and that within her pale the whole world called Christian once enjoyed a profound Repose and it could be said behold the people is one and they have all one language.

Genesis 11 6 it was a union and peace founded in ignorance Delusion implicit faith and a base subjection to human authority and supported by the arts of compulsion and terror. But there are other methods by which Christians may be deceived and the interests of religion deeply injured under the pretext or with the view of uniting its friends.

Among these I know none more imposing nor from which greater danger is to be apprehended in the present time Than that which proceeds on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian. It has obtained this name because it proclaims an undue latitude in matters of religion Which persons may take to themselves or give to others?

It's a betters make light of the differences which subsist among religious parties and proposed to unite them on the common principles on which they are already agreed in the way of burying the rest in silence or of Stipulating mutual forbearance and charity with respect to everything about which they may differ in opinion or in practice.

Some plead for this on the ground that the several professions of religion Differ very little from one another and are all conducive to the happiness of mankind and the honor of God. Who is pleased with the various diversified modes in which men profess their regard to him? provided only they are sincere in their professions.

A Principle of deformity which however congenial to the system of polytheism is utterly aversive of a religion founded on the unity of the divine nature and will and On a revelation which teaches us what we are to believe concerning God and what duty he requires of us.

But the ground on which this plan is ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made among the articles of religion. Some of these are called essential or fundamental or necessary or principle. Others circumstantial or non-fundamental or unnecessary or less important.

The former it is pleaded are embraced by all true Christians. The latter form the subjects of difference among them and ought not to enter into the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship. On this principle some of them would conciliate and unite all the Christian denominations Not accepting papists Arians and socinians while others restrict their plan to those called Evangelical who differ mainly in their views and practice as to the worship order and discipline of the church.

The distinction on which this scheme rests is itself liable to objections which appear insuperable. It is not warranted by the Word of God and the most acute of its defenders have never been able to state Stated in a manner that is satisfactory or which renders its subservient to any practical use.

The scripture indeed speaks of certain truths which may be called the foundation Because they are first laid and others depend on them first principles or elementary truths which are to be taught before others but their priority or posteriority in point of order in Conception or instruction does not determine the relative importance of doctrines or their necessity in order to salvation.

Far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches. There are doctrines to which intrinsically and on different accounts may be said to have a peculiar and superior degree of importance and This so far as known may properly be urged as a motive for our giving the more earnest heed to them.

It is not however their comparative importance or utility But their truth and the authority of him who has revealed them which is the formal and proper reason of our receiving professing and maintaining them.

And This applies equally to all the contents of a divine revelation. The relations of truths Especially those of a supernatural kind are manifold and incomprehensible to us. It is not our part to pronounce a judgment on them.

And if we could see them as God does in all their extent and at once We would behold the lesser joined to the greater the most remote connected with the primary by necessary and indissoluble links and Altogether conspiring to form one beautiful and harmonious and indivisible whole.

Whatever God has revealed we are bound to receive and hold fast. Whatever he has enjoined we are bound to obey and the liberty which we dare not arrogate to ourselves We cannot give to others. It is not indeed necessary that the confession or testimony of the church Meaning by this that which is explicitly made by her as distinguished from her declared adherence to the whole Word of God Should contain all truths.

But then any of them may come to be included in it when opposed and endangered and it is no sufficient reason for Excluding any of them that they are less important than others or that they have been doubted and denied by good and learned men.

Whatever forbearance may be exercised to persons the Word of the Lord in all its extent must have free course and be glorified see 2nd Thessalonians 3 1 and Any act of men call it forbearance or what you will which serves as a screen and protection to error or sin and prevents it from being opposed and removed by any proper means is contrary to the divine law and Consequently is destitute of all intrinsic force and validity.

There are truths also which are more immediately connected with salvation. But who will pretend to fix those? Propositions which are absolutely necessary to be known in order to salvation by all persons of all capacities and in all Situations or say how low a God of grace and salvation may descend in dealing with particular individuals.

Or if we could determine this extreme point Who would say that it ought to fix the rule of our dealing with others or the extent of a church's profession of faith If is nothing else to be kept in view in settling articles of faith and fellowship.

But what may be necessary to the salvation of sinners? Do we not owe a paramount regard to the glory of God in the highest to the edifying of the body of Christ? To the advancing of the general interests of religion and To the preserving impurity of those external means by which in the economy of providence and grace The salvation of men both initial and progressive may be promoted to an incalculable extent from age to age.

In fine there is reason for complaining that the criteria or marks for given for determining these Fundamental or necessary articles are uncertain or contradictory. It is alleged that they are clearly taught in Scripture.

This is true of others also. That they are few and simple. This is contradicted by their own attempts to state them that they are such as the Scripture has declared to be necessary. Why then have we not yet been furnished with a catalog of them?

That they are such as embraced by all true Christians. Have they a secret tact by which they are able to discover such characters? If not, can they avoid running into a vicious circle and reasoning by first determining who are true Christians by their embracing certain doctrines and Then determining that these doctrines are fundamental because they are embraced by persons of that description.

Many who have contributed to give currency to this scheme have been actuated I have no doubt by motives which are in themselves highly commendable. They wish to fix the attention of men on matters Confessively of great importance and were anxious to put an end to the dissensions of Christians By discovering a mean point in which the views of all might harmoniously meet.

But surely those who cherish a supreme regard for divine authority Will be afraid of condemning or of teaching others to think lightly of anything which bears its sacred impress. They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an opinion or an interpretation of any part of Scripture which seems to imply in it that God has given men a power to dispense with some of his own laws and They will be cautious of originating or countenancing plans of communion that may involve a principle of such a complexion.

These plans are more or less dangerous according to the extent to which they are carried and the errors or abuses which may prevail Among the parties which they embrace. But however limited they may be they set an example which may be carried to any extent.

So far as it is agreed and stipulated that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed or neglected and that any error or sin shall Be treated as indifferent or trivial the essence of latitude and Arianism is adopted room is made for further Advancements and the way is prepared for ascending through successive generations to the very highest degree in the scale.

Another plan of communion apparently opposite to the former but proceeding on the same general principle has been zealously Recommended and in some instances reduced to practice in the present day. According to it the several religious parties are allowed to remain separate and to preserve their distinct constitution and peculiarities.

While a species of partial or occasional communion is established among them This plan is liable to all the objections which lie against the former with the addition of another that is peculiar to itself.

It is inconsistent and self-contradictory. It strikes against the radical principles of the unity of the church and confirms schism by law. While it provides that the parties shall remain separate at the same time that it proceeds on the supposition that there is no scriptural or conscientious ground of difference between them and Barrow notes that this is mr. Bacon's plan of communion.

By defending such occasional conformity English dissenters at a former period contradicted the reasons of their descent from the establishment and Exposed themselves to their opponents for where communion is lawful.

It will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism. The world has for some time beheld annually the spectacle of Episcopalians Presbyterians Independents Methodists and seceders sitting down together at the Lord's table and then going away and maintaining Communion through the remainder of the year on their own separate and contradictory professions.

Nay it has of late become the practice to keep in the same church an open communion table for Christians of different denominations on one part of the day and A closed one for those of a particular sect on the other part of the day.

While the same ministers officiate and many individuals communicate on both these occasions and All this is cried up as a proof of liberality and a mind that has freed itself from the trammels of party.

It is difficult to say which of these plans is most objectionable by the former that church Which is most most faithful and has made the greatest progress in Reformation Must always be the loser without having the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed any benefit to her new associates it behoves her profession and management's to yield and to be reduced to the standard of those societies which are defective and less reformed and Thus by a process opposite to that mentioned by the Apostle those who have built on the foundation gold silver and precious stones Are the persons who shall suffer loss first Corinthians 3 12 and 15?

By the latter scheme all the good effects which might be expected from warrantable and necessary separations are lost without the compensation of a rational and effective conjunction. Purity of communion is endangered.

Persons are encouraged to continue in connection with the most corrupt churches and the faithful testimony against errors and abuses with all consistent attempts to have them removed or prevented is held up to odium and reproach as Dictated by bigotry and as tending to revive the old dissensions and to defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days of peace which are anticipated under the reign of mutual forbearance and charity and That was from Thomas McCree's unity of the church Which is Presbyterian heritage publications reprint pages 106 to 118.

And it's also free under the free books section of Stillwaters revival books web page www .swrb .com. As you can see it is not necessary to quote a Covenanter to expose mr. Bacon's latitudinarian tendencies.

Those who boast of liberal forbearance are typically most liberal in spewing out severe accusations upon those who plead for true liberty of conscience. It is an undoubted maxim of our tolerant age that there are none so violently Intolerant as the so professedly tolerant man who contends with those who are steadfast in the true religion.