2006 Issue 4 - Authentic Christianity: Studies in the Westminster Standards Part 2 - Counsel of...

8/12/2019 2006 Issue 4 - Authentic Christianity: Studies in the Westminster Standards Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/13

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY

During the reign of Henry VIII, the reformation of the

church in England was largely a contest between theking and the pope. The purpose, which Henry VIII

set before himself, was to free the state from foreign

influences exerted by the pope through the church; and

his efforts were directed, with great singleness of aim, to

the establishment of his own authority in ecclesiastical

matters to the exclusion of that of the pope. In these

efforts he had the support of Parliament, always jealous

of foreign interference; and was not merely sustained

but urged on by the whole force of the religious and

doctrinal reform gradually spreading among the people,

which, however, he made it his business rather to curb

than to encourage. The removal of this curb during the

reign of Edward VI concealed for a time the evils inherent

in the new powers assumed by the throne. But with the

accession of Elizabeth I, who had no sympathy whatever

with religious enthusiasm, they began to appear; and they

grew ever more flagrant under her successors, (Bloody

Mary, the pervert James I, and the devotee to the

tenet that the king is law, Charles I). The authority in

ecclesiastical matters, which had been vindicated to the

throne over against the pope, was increasingly employed

to establish the general authority of the throne over against

the Parliament. The church thus became the instrument ofthe crown in compacting its absolutism; and the interests

of civil liberty soon rendered it as imperative to break the

absolutism of the king in ecclesiastical affairs as it had

ever been to eliminate the papacy from the control of the

English Church.

The controversy was thus shifted from a contest

between Pope and King to a contest between King

and Parliament. And as the cause of the king had

ever more intimately allied itself with that of the

prelatical party (Anglo-Catholics) in the Church,

which had grown more and more reactionary until

under the leading of Laud (1573-1645) it had

become aggressively and revolutionary so, the

cause of Puritanism, that is of pure Protestantism,became ever more identical with that of the

Parliament. When the parties were ultimately lined

up for the final struggle, therefore, it was king and

prelate (Anglo-Catholic bishop) on the one side,

against Parliament and Puritan on the other. The

MAIN ISSUE, which was raised, was a secular

one, the issue of representative government over

against royal absolutism. This issue was fought

to a finish, with the ultimate result that there were

established in England a constitutional monarchy

and a responsible government. There was

complicated with this issue, however, also the

issue, no doubt, at bottom, of religious freedom

over against ecclesiastical tyranny, for it was

impatience with ecclesiastical tyranny which gave

its vigor to the movement. But the form, which

was openly taken by the ecclesiastical issue, was

rather that of A CONTEST BETWEEN A PURE

PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLIZING

REACTION.

This struggle had reached its acutest stage

when the Long Parliament1 met, on the third of

November, 1640. Profoundly distrustful of thekings sincerity, and determined on its own behalf

to be trifled with no longer, Parliament was in no

mood for compromises with respect whether to

civil or to ecclesiastical affairs. (At this point

in time)...the Reformed character of the Church

of England as well as in its official Articles of

Religion as in its general conviction was not

in dispute.- Warfield, THE WESTMINSTER

ASSEMBLY AND ITS WORK, pgs. 4-6.

AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY II

Studies in the Westminster Standards

By Joe Morecraft III

the COUNSELof CHALCEDON4


2/13

THE ACTIONS LEADING TO THE

CALLING OF THE WESTMINSTER

ASSEMBLY

THE CENTURY BEFORE THEWESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY

THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII (1509-1547)Henry VIII, dissatisfied with his latest wife, sought

approval for a divorce from the Pope in Rome, so he could

remarry. The Pope refused and so Henry broke with the

Roman Catholic Church, and set himself up as supreme

head of the Church of England, requiring submission

from all ministers and members to his headship. He

also divorced and remarried! However, although the

Protestant Reformation was making its way through the

English and Scottish countryside and universities, the

king imposed many Roman Catholic rituals and doctrines

upon the Church of England. Pillars of the Reformation,

such as Thomas Cromwell, were burned at the stake for

heresy, (1540), i.e., the believing and preaching of purely

Protestant doctrine. Roman Catholics were beheaded for

refusing to accept his headship over the church in the

place of the popes.

This ecclesiastical and civil tyranny of Henry VIII was

the cause that led to the long and bitter controversies by

which the church was agitated, to the cruel persecutions

which the established church waged for more than one

hundred years against dissenters, and to that religious

revolution of which the Westminster Assembly was the

culmination and its creed the symbol.- Robert Price in

MEMORIAL VOLUME, pg. 36.

THE MINISTRY OF WILLIAM TYNDALE(1492-1536)

The Reformation in England spread through the work of

William Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English.

Because of the influence of Thomas Cranmer on Henry

VIII, this Bible was allowed on sale in 1537 and in 1538

Thomas Cromwell ordered that it be accessible to the

public in every church.2

With this increased Bible reading3, and with the increasing

influence of the writings of the English pre-Reformer1 So by the mid-seventeenth century, English men and women had experienced a quarter of

millenium of emphasis on the sovereignty of the Scriptures as the unique source of Divine wisdom on

subjects, including politics; and a source which must be opened to everybody.- Christopher Hill, TH

ENGLISH BIBLE AND THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY REVOLUTION, 1993.

2 The number of Bibles and New Testaments printed in England (and in English) between t

Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Westminster Assembly, (about 150 years),

estimated at ONE MILLION!

3 The most popular version was the Geneva Bible published in 1560 in England. It not only was

popular and readable text, it had commentary on each page that was reflective of the theology of Joh

Calvin, John Knox and the Protestant Reformation, with significant political and social implications an

applications. Between 1560 and 1603 it went through 90 editions. But after 1616 when James I came

the throne it had to be smuggled in from the Netherlands. One translator of King James Is Bible boast

that, whereas the word tyrant was used repeatedly in the Geneva Bible, it was not used once in the Ki

James version!

Charlie Marks likes a challenge. Having served his church for 30 years as

worship leader, choral director, songwriter, guitarist, voice/guitar/music theory

teacher, and keyboardist, he decided to create an album of synthesized holiday

instrumentals, with each artificial "instrument" matching its true "voice" as

realistically as possible. This labor of love became Classic Christmas, an

excellent instrumental album that is jubilant, generous (almost a full hour of

music!), and genuinely delightful. The 18 tracks lean exclusively towards the

sacred, embracing an air of joy and excitement.

This album would provide a beautiful backdrop for any seasonal event. The music

is well-crafted. The arrangements are creative, but remain true to the heart

and soul of these familiar holiday favorites. Favorite moments include the

precious bell choir on "O Little Town of Bethlehem," the exotic flutes on "We

Three Kings of Orient Are," the alien intro on "While Shepherds Watched their Flocks," the sweetly simple "GentleMary Laid Her Child" (the same tune as "Good King Wenceslas"), and the glorious trumpet fanfare on "Joy To The

World."

Classic Christmasis exactly that--holiday music that is absolutely classic for the season. Charlie Marks likes a

challenge, and this fine album is the winning result. Congratulations, Charlie!

--Carol Swanson

To hear samples of this album and to place an order see: http://cdbaby.com/cd/charliemarks

Charlie is currently a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Mission in Corpus Christi, TX.

the COUNSELof CHALCEDON

Joe Morecraft III

5


3/13

John Wyclif (1328-1384), of Martin Luther, and other

continental Reformers, more and more Englishmen were

becoming genuinely Protestant and Reformed. But Henry

VIII persisted in his Roman Catholic theology. In 1539 he

had Parliament pass the Six Articles Act, which committed

the Church of England to strict Roman doctrines, including

transubstantiation, the denial of which was punishable by

death.

THE REIGNS OF EDWARD VI (1547-1553) ANDBLOODY MARY (1553-1558)

Under Edward VI, who succeeded Henry VIII, the tension

eased a bit, and for a while genuine Protestantism,

released from Henrys bigotry and intolerance, made rapid

progress, yet the people had no voice in ecclesiastical

affairs; in fact, the great majority of the people and of

the parochial clergy were in sympathy with the Catholic

Church.... The outward progress and open avowal of

the reformed doctrines was checked by the accession

of Mary, (the bloody Mary). The ease with which shereversed the ecclesiastical policy of the government and

took the church back to Rome, shows how little hold

Protestant doctrines had taken on the people. A great

many Protestants were burned at the stake; but the effect

of this was to spread and intensify the popular aversion

to a church so cruel Protestantism was strengthened and

purified by the efforts to exterminate it. Many fled to the

continent, and there came in contact with the Presbyterian

form of church government, and on the death of Mary

returned to England filled with the spirit of freedom and

scriptural truth which they had there imbibed, (from

Geneva, Frankfurt and Zurich).

THE HEROIC MARTYRS UNDER BLOODYMARY

Devout Roman Catholic that she was, Blood Mary restored

papal authority in England and severely persecuted the

Reformers. John Rogers, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas

Ridley, Hugh Latimer and John Hooper, all great and

godly Reformers, were burned to death in 1555-1556,

along with some 300 other martyrs. These martyrdoms

did more for the spread of anti-Rome sentiment than all

previous efforts by the state.

THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH I (1558-1603)

Elizabeths policy, (she succeeded Mary), was similar to

that of her father, Henry VIII. There was some reason to

believe that she was a Catholic at heart, and would have

been willing to return to the Roman allegiance if the thing

had been practicable. But, as the Pope excommunicated

her and denied her legitimacy, her occupancy of the

throne depended upon the support of her Protestant

subjects. She was, therefore, compelled to be a Protestant

in self-defence. As it was, she devoted herself to the

maintenance of the national church as then constituted

and to the repression of anything like dissent, or any

form of religious liberty. Puritanism as a party, and active

power, made its appearance during her reign, and was

greatly strengthened by the return from the continent of

the Marian exiles.- Price in MEMORIAL VOLUME

pgs. 35-38.

THE FIRST PRESBYTERY IN ENGLAND (1572)

In 1572 many of the Puritan ministers and laymen formed

a presbytery at Wandsworth, not far from London. This

was the first presbytery every organized in England

Thus nearly a hundred years before the meeting of the

Westminster Assembly Presbyterianism was planted

in England in organized form.- Price, MEMORIAL

VOLUME, pg. 40.

THE HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION INSCOTLAND

The history of the Reformation in Scotland was in

striking contrast with the history of the Reformation in

England. In the latter it originated in the caprice of an

unprincipled despot; in the former the movement began

with the people as the result of personal conviction. The

doctrines of the Protestant reformers probably found

their way into Scotland through the secret circulation of

the writings of Luther and others. The first, so far as is

known, who openly and systematically preached them

was Patrick Hamilton, a young man of royal lineage, great

talents and burning zeal. In 1526 he went to the continen

and studied under Luther and Melanchthon. On his return

he devoted himself to the preaching of the truth. He was

arrested and burned at the stake. The martyrdom of one

so young, so high-born, and so accomplished, helped to

attract attention to the doctrines for which he suffered

They spread with considerable rapidity in the next ten

years, notwithstanding the bitter persecution, which was

waged, in which many perished at the stake. In 1546 the

party had become so strong that the Protestant nobles rose

in armed resistance to their persecutors. In 1560, by the

aid of Queen Elizabeth of England, the government forceswere defeated, and the right to hold a free parliament was

extorted. This body met the first day of August, 1560

One of its first acts was to abolish the Roman Catholic

Church as the Church of Scotland, to prohibit the mass

under severe penalties, and to require the Protestant

ministers, of whom John Knox was chief, to draw up a

confession of faith, which was there and then adopted as

the standard of the national church. On the twentieth of

December of the same year, the ministers and many of the


Authentic Christianity II

6


4/13

THE REIGN OF JAMES I (1603-1625)

In 1580 the Scottish General Assembly, under the

leadership of Andrew Melville, by a unanimous vote

abolished episcopal church government and ordered the

bishops to demit their offices. James VI of Scotland, soon

to be James I of England, greatly disapproved of this

decision. He defied the Assemblys decision by appointed

an archbishop of Glasgow. The church resisted his actionand stood firm, thus bringing the church into dangerous

collision with the king. From that time on James pursued

the policy of subjecting church courts to his despotic

authority and of forcing prelacy upon the Scottish church

He felt that the freedom of the Presbyterian system was

incompatible with despotism in the state, while the bishops

could be used as the instruments of his tyranny. His motto

was, No bishop, no king. To secure the subjugation

of the church he did not hesitate to resort to deceit and

persecution. Some of the most eminent ministers in the

kingdom were banished. In 1603 he succeeded to the

English throne, under the title of James I. But no change

was made by this in his ecclesiastical policy, except to

render it, if possible, more uncompromising and severe.

Ministers who refused to conform to what they regarded

as superstitious ceremonies were silenced, and sometimes

shut up in prison, or forced to leave the country. Many

distinguished for their learning and piety, together with

leading Protestant laymen met together for the purpose

of organizing the new church.... This is called the first

meeting of the Scottish General Assembly.

The system thus established has prevailed in the Church

of Scotland from that day to this, and has come down

to us through the Westminster Assembly. Through all

the intervening years the Scotch church has battled and

suffered for those principles, and the blood of its martyrs,poured out like water, has rendered the soil of Scotland

sacred ground in the eyes of all Presbyterians the world

over.- Price, MEMORIAL VOLUME, pgs. 43-44.

Why was the biblical doctrine of the church rediscovered

in Scotland, a land which for so long had been accustomed

to the rule of a powerful hierarchy of clan chiefs, and to

the rule of monarchy and aristocracy in the state? How

could such a land in such a condition with such a history

conceive of the idea of a republican form of government

for the church? This may be accounted for in part by their

acquaintance with the Genevan church and the writings ofCalvin, though theirs was a more thorough development of

Presbyterianism than prevailed in Geneva. The real cause,

however, lies in the fact that they took the Scriptures as

their sole and infallible guide of faith and practice, and

modeled their church organization after that which was

established by the apostles.- Price, pg. 44.

No b l e S a v a g e s

Ex p o s in g t h e W o r l d v i e w o f P o r n o g r a p h e r s a n d Th e i r W a r A g a i n s t Ch r i s t i an

C i v i l i z a t i o n

B y R . J. R u s h d o o n y

Pornography has burgeoned into a near 60 billion dollar industry exceeding the combined revenuesof professional football, baseball, and basketball. Millions of erotic web sites litter cyberspace withportals of entrapment that entice every race, nationality, and gender. Even Christians are notimmune to this social virus as recent surveys reveal that 47% of Christians declared pornographyto be a problem in their home.

What was once sold under the counter as filth was now celebrated as the literary symbol ofliberation from God and His law-word. In 1974, recognized that the roots of pornography in modernculture are essentially religious and must be combated religiously. In this powerful book NobleSavages (formerly The Politics of Pornography) Rushdoony demonstrates that in order for modernman to justify his perversion he must reject the Biblical doctrine of the fall of man. If there is no fall,the Marquis de Sade argued, then all that man does is normative. Rushdoony concluded, [T]he

world will soon catch up with Sade, unless it abandons its humanistic foundations. Symptomsare important and sometimes very serious, but it is very wrong and dangerous to treat symptomsrather than the underlying disease. Pornography is a symptom; it is not the problem. What is theproblem? Its the philosophy behind pornography the rejection of the fall of man that makesnormative all that man does. Learn it all in this timeless classic.

Price: $18

Order from: www.chalcedonstore.com

Chalcedon FoundationP.O. Box 158

Vallecito, CA 95251Tel: (209) 736-4365Fax: 209 736-0536


Joe Morecraft III

7


5/13the COUNSELof CHALCEDON


8

their devoted followers preferred exile, with religious

liberty, to their beloved country groaning under civil and

religious despotism, and sought refuge in Holland where

English churches were erected after the Presbyterian

model. Some, driven by Episcopal oppression to the

opposite extreme of church government, adopted the

independent polity, and after a temporary residence among

the liberty-loving and hospitable Dutch, emigrated to

New England.... The foolish, bigoted and tyrannical rule

of James I was one of the chief causes, which led to such

fatal results to his family and kingdom, and to that great

religious revolution which culminated in the Westminster

Assembly.4

THE REIGN OF CHARLES I (1625-1649)

Charles I fell heir to the principles, as well as the

throne, of his father (James I). Charles I undertook...

to establish a despotism in the state, and with the aid of

Archbishop Laud, a despotism in the church. No liberty

of belief or practice was to be allowed. All were requiredto be members of the Established Church, and all were

required to conform, in the minutest particulars, to its rites

and ceremonies. Laud was an Arminian in his theology

and semi-papal in his ecclesiastical polity. His purpose

was to bring the Church of England into an agreement

with the Church of Rome as nearly as could be done

without abandoning its separate existence. The High

Commission Court and the Star Chamber Court were the

instruments of his oppressions.- Price, MEMORIAL

VOLUME, pgs. 45-48.

4 Puritan hostility was greatly aroused against James I when he issued his infamous BOOK OF

SPORTS in 1618, in which he recommended sports, games and dances on Sunday, instead of careful

Sabbath observance. To the Puritans this was a direct royal demand to disobey the revealed will of God.

What was even more offensive and intolerable was the requirement that all ministers read the BOOK OF

SPORTS to their congregations every Sunday. Many refused and suffered for it. Others would read it and

then read from the Fourth Commandment, saying that thefirst is the injunction of man, the second is the

law of God.

When Charles I ascended the throne, he found England

in a state of discontent swelling towards insurrection

in consequence of a long course of tyranny, civil and

religious, which it had uneasily endured. Unfortunately

for him and for the kingdom, he had imbibed all his

fathers despotic notions of the absolute and irresponsible

nature of the royal prerogative. ...he not only refused

to mitigate the sufferings of the English Puritans, but

resolved to complete what his father had begun, and to

bring the Scottish Church into an entire conformity with

that of England.- Hetherington, pgs. 103-104.

THE NATIONAL COVENANT INSCOTLAND (1638)

THE ATTEMPT OF CHARLES I TO OPPRESS THESCOTTISH CHURCH

After Charles I, under the influence of Archbishop Laud

had forced conformity to Roman Catholic ceremonies

on the church, which led to the severe persecution ofthose who refused to comply,5 the king recklessly tried

to impose those ceremonies upon the Scottish people and

the church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian, because

of the influence of such men as John Knox. This measure

provoked immediate and determined resistance. The

nation of Scotland united itself against the kings measure

in the National Covenant

THE CONTENT OF THE NATIONALCOVENANT

Whereas the entire document is worth reading, the main

point is to be found in these words:

We Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses,

Ministers, and Commons, under-subscribing,

considering divers times before, and especially at

this time, the danger of the true reformed religion,

of the Kings honor, and of the public peace of

the kingdom, by the manifold innovations

and evils, generally contained, and particularly

mentioned in our late supplications, complaints

and protestations; do hereby profess, and

before God, his angels, and the world, solemnly

declare, That with our whole heart we agree,

and resolve all the days of our life constantly

to adhere unto and to defend the aforesaid true

religion, and (forbearing the practice of all

innovations already introduced in the matters

of the worship of God, or approbation of the

corruptions of the public government of the

5 Many fled England for Holland and America. Large numbers of non-conformists who wrot

against these oppressive measures were left totally destitute, and some were punished by having their ea

cut off, their nose slit, and by perpetual imprisonment.

A Cart oon il lus trat ed Exp osi tio n of Daniel 9:24-27 that out-charts Dispensationalism!

By Vic Lockman

The gap theory is exposed and the Gospel isclearly proclaimed in the text.

Biblical

Historic Reformed

Gospel-loaded

24 pages - $3

Vic has other excellent material on the Westminster Catechism, Gods Law,Reading th e Bible, and the Last Days!

Order from www.viclockman.com



Joe Morecraft III

9

Kirk (Scottish church), or civil places and

power of kirkmen, till they be tried and allowed

in free Assemblies and in Parliament) to labor,

by all means lawful, to recover the purity and

liberty of the Gospel, as it was established and

professed before the foresaid innovations.

And because, after due examination, we

plainly perceive, and undoubtedly believe, thatthe innovations and evils contained in our

supplications, complaints and protestations,

have no warrant in the word of God, are contrary

to the articles of the foresaid Confession, to

the intention and meaning of the blessed

reformers of religion in this land, to the above-

written acts of Parliament; and do sensibly tend

to the re-establishing of the Popish religion

and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruin of

the true reformed religion, and of our liberties,

laws, and estates; we also declare, That theforesaid Confessions are to be interpreted,

and ought to be understood of the foresaid

(in)novations and evils, no less than if every

one of them had been expressed in the foresaid

Confessions; and that we are obliged to detest

and abhor them, amongst other par ticular heads

of Papistry abjured therein. And therefore,

from the knowledge and conscience of

our duty to God, to our King and country,

without any worldly respect or inducement,

so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing

a further measure of the grace of God for

this effect; we promise and swear, by the

GREAT NAME OF THE LORD OUR GOD,

to continue in the profession and obedience of

the foresaid religion; and that we shall defend

the same, and resist all these contrary errors

and corruptions, according to our vocation,

and to the uttermost of that power that God

hath put in our hands, all the days of our life.

THE RESPONSE OF THE KING

The king raised an army to break this Scottish resistance,

but, true to his cowardly nature, he shrunk back from

what would be a perilous encounter and entered into an

evasive truce.

THE ETCETERA OATH (1640)

The abortive attempt of Charles I to bring Scotland to her

knees, exhausted the treasury, and compelled him to call

a Parliament so as to obtain more finances. The House

of Commons refused to do so until certain grievances

had been redressed. Disappointed and enraged, the king

dissolved the Parliament, and threw its leading members

into prison. Hungry for finances he taxed his people more

oppressively than ever. Although Parliament refused the

money, the Convocation (of bishops), contrary to the law

of the land, granted him a large sum to continue his efforts

to reduce his people to total conformity to his ceremonies

This money enabled him to continue what was called the

Episcopal war6. The Convocation, in support of the king

also issued what was called the et cetera oath upon all

ministers, which required them to swear that they wil

never give their consent to alter the government of this

Church, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons

ET CETERA, as it now stands established, upon pain

of severe penalty. From this clause it obtained the

name of the et cetera oath,1 and became an additiona

element of strife between the Prelatists and the Puritans

driving many ministers into the latter body, because they

could not consent to swear adherence to they knew notwhat.- William M. Hetherington, HISTORY OF THE

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES, pg. 80.

THE ROOT AND BRANCH PETITION(1640)

By this time England was in an uproar. Men were elected

to the House of Commons in Parliament who were staunch

defenders of liberty, and who were prepared for the

struggle with the king. Because it stayed in existence for

so long a time, it was called The Long Parliament, and it

has been said that no age or nation has ever produced men

of greater eminence, in abilities and character, than were

the leaders of that celebrated assembly.- Hetherington

pg. 81.

The Long Parliament immediately took bold action

The nation was swirling with murderous plots and

conspiracies, which usually included the king, and which

would advance his tyranny. Realizing that Archbishop

Laud was the real instigator behind the abortive invasion

of Scotland, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London

and later executed (1645). The Earl of Strafford, Lord

Lieutenant of Ireland, was also impeached for conspiracy

and committed to the Tower. The people had taken all they

could take. Along with the literary assaults of the Puritans

the people poured petitions into the House of Commons

from all over the nation. The most important petition

was the root and branch petition signed by 15,000

people. Fifteen-hundred men of high rank presented it to

Parliament in 1640.

This petition was to the effect that the government of

6 It is interesting to note that Charles Is war to extend tyranny was called the Episcopal war, a

the American War of Independence to extend liberty was called the Presbyterian rebellion.




10

archbishops and lord bishops, deans, and archdeacons,

etc. (the same enumeration, observe, as in the et cetera

oath1) with all its dependencies, roots and branches,

may be abolished, and all laws in their behalf made void,

and the government according to Gods word may be

rightly placed amongst us.- Warfield, pg. 7. The petition

was passed into law by the Long Parliament on February

5, 1642, since the great majority of its leading men had

become Presbyterians in their tendencies. On January

26, 1643, a bill was passed which abolished prelacy

altogether.

Among the formal complaints against the prelates given

as reasons for the root and branch petition and included

in that petition were:

(1). There was a faint-heartedness of ministers to preach

the truth of God, lest they should displease the prelates;

as namely, the doctrine of predestination, of free grace, of

perseverance, of original sin remaining after baptism, of

the sabbath, the doctrine against universal grace, election

for faith foreseen, free-will, against antichrist, non-

residents, human inventions in Gods worship all which

are generally withheld from the peoples knowledge,

because not relishing to the bishops.- printed in TO

GLORIFY AND ENJOY GOD, pg. 269.

(2). The great increase of idle, lewd and dissolute,

ignorant and erroneous men in the ministry, which swarm

like the locusts of Egypt over the whole kingdom; and

will they but wear a canonical coat, a surplice, a hood,

bow at the name of Jesus, and be zealous of superstitious

ceremonies, they may live as they list (want), confront

whom they please, preach and vent what errors they will,and neglect preaching at their pleasures without control.-

pg. 270.

(3). The discouragement of many from bringing up their

children in learning; the many schisms, errors, and strange

opinions which are in the Church; great corruptions which

are in the Universities; the gross and lamentable ignorance

almost everywhere among the people; the want (lack) of

preaching ministers in very many places both of England

and Wales; the loathing of the ministry, and the general

defection to all manner of profaneness.- pg. 270.

(4). The hindering of godly books to be printed, the

blotting out or perverting those which they suffer,

all of most of that which strikes either at Popery or

Arminianism....- pg. 270.

(5). The publishing and venting of Popish, Arminian and

other dangerous books.... 11- pg. 270.

(6). The growth of Popery and increase of Papists, Priests

and Jesuits in sundry place, but especially in London since

the Reformation....- pg. 270.

(7). The multitude of monopolies and patents, drawing

with them innumerable perjuries; the large increase of

customs (taxes!) ..., under which all groan.-pg. 270.

(8). Profanation of the Lords Day....- pg. 272.

THE PROTESTATION OF THE HOUSE OFCOMMONS (1641)

I, A.B., do, in the presence of God, promise, vow

and protest to maintain and defend, as far as lawfully I

may with my life, power and estate, the true reformedProtestant religion expressed in the doctrine of the Church

of England, against all Popery and popish innovation

within this realm....- TO GLORIFY AND ENJOY GOD

pg. 273. This vow was taken by the members of the House

of Commons.

THE ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS(1641)

September 1, 1641, the House of Lords passed its own

resolution outlawing all diverse innovations in or about

the worship of God, calling for the dutiful observation o

the Lords day, the removal of crucifixes, images of Mary

and the cessation of superstitious practices in the church

This resolution revealed the strongly anti-Romanist and

pro-Reformed spirit of the entire Parliament.

THE GRAND REMONSTRANCE (1641)

THE GROWING AWARENESS FOR GODLYADVICE TO PARLIAMENT

Along with these resolutions dismantling the prelatic

government of the Church of England, attempts and calls

were made to pass positive legislation, which wouldreconstruct the church along Biblical lines. Therefore

also, it was becoming more and more obvious that the

advice and wise counsel of godly and scholarly Reformed

ministers and teachers was needed to assist and guide the

Parliament in its reconstruction of church government.77 Although the great majority of leading men in Parliament were Presbyterian in their tendencie

(with reference to church government), they had very littl e knowledge as to what Presbyterianism real

was. In fact, it never entered into the minds of the men in Parliament to construct a government in th

Church of England, which would not be under the control of Parliament. The king and prelates wanted th

church under the king; and Parliament wanted the church under Parliament. This trenchant secularity

Parliament was its ingrained Erastianism, named after Thomas Erastus, 1524-83. Erastianism holds th

there is no institutional separation of church and state, that the church is not a commonwealth with

own officers and jurisdiction separate from the civil government, but that, in some sense, it is under t

institutional jurisdiction of the state.

The Westminster Assembly was confined to a purely advisory function with reference to Parliamen

Parliament was determined to hold the entire power of both church and state in its own hands. Althou

Parliament was intent upon vindicating the civil liberty of the English citizens, it never caught the visi

of a free Church in a free State. It must also be pointed out, however, that although the Parliament deni

to the Assembly initiation and authority, it left it perfectly free in its deliberations and conclusions.

Since Parliament was, in reality, to some degree or another, Erastian, in the debates of the Assemb

and in the whole conduct of its negotiations with Parliament during this dispute, the Assembly manifest

the highest dignity,firmness and courage. If Parliament utterly refused to set up a series of ecclesiastic

courts with independent jurisdiction even in purely spiritual matters, and insisted on reserving to itse

or to secular committees established by and directly responsible to it, the review of even such spiritu

functions as the determination offitness to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the Assembl

on its part respectfully but firmly protested against such an intrusion of the secular arm into spiritu

things, and refused to be a party to any ecclesiastical arrangement which denied to the Church what

deemed its divinely prescribed rights and responsibilities. It took for its motto the ringing phrase, TH

CROWN RIGHTS OF JESUS CHRIST1.... It showed itself tender, zealous and careful to assert Chri

and His Church their privilege and right...that Christ lives and reigns alone over and in His Church, a

will have all done therein according to His Word and will, and that He has given no supreme headshi

over His Church to any Pope, King or Parliament whatsoever. (Warriston) On the matter of the spiritu



Joe Morecraft III

11

THE INCREASING CALL FOR AN ASSEMBLY OFDIVINES TO ASSIST PARLIAMENT

From all sides, within Parliament and without it alike,

the suggestion was pressed that a formal Synod of

Divines should be convened to which Parliament should

statedly appeal for counsel in all questions which should

occasionally arise in the process of the settlement of the

Church. And from the beginning it was at least hinted that,in framing its advice, such a Synod might well bear in

mind wider interests than merely the internal peace of the

Church of England; that it might, for example, consider

the advantage of securing along with that a greater

harmony with the other Reformed churches, particularly

the neighboring Church of Scotland. It was accordingly

with this wider outlook in mind that the proposition was

given explicit shape in the Grand Remonstrance, which

was drawn up in the House of Commons on November

8, 1641, and having been passed on November 22, was

presented to the King on December I.

THE CONTENT OF THE GRANDREMONSTRANCE

This document began by avowing the intention of

Parliament to reduce within bounds that exorbitant power

which the prelates had assumed unto themselves, and to

set up a juster discipline and government in the Church.

It proceeded thus: And the better to effect the intended

reformation, we desire there may be a general synod of the

most grave, pious, learned and judicious divines of this

island; assisted with some from foreign parts, professing

the same religion with us, who may consider of all thingsnecessary for the peace and good government of the

Church, and represents the results of their consultations

unto the Parliament, lo be there allowed of and confirmed,

and receive the stamp of authority, thereby to find passage

and obedience throughout the kingdom.- Warfield, THE

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY AND ITS WORK, pgs.

10-11.

THE CALLING FOR THE WESTMINSTERASSEMBLY

Having been passed by Parliament in 1643 and put ineffect, without the kings assent, the ordinance called

for around 150 attendees and participants to meet and

assemble themselves at Westminster, in the Chapel called

King Henry the VIIs Chapel, on the first day of July, in

the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred and forty-

three,1 and thereafter, from time to time to sit, and be

removed from place to place1 and to confer and treat

among themselves of such matters and things, touching

jurisdiction of the Church, the Assembly remained unmoved and insisted that Christ has instituted in the

Church a government and governors ecclesiastical disti nct from the civil magistrate.- B.B. Warfield, THE

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY AND ITS WORK, pgs. 41-43.

and concerning the Liturgy, Discipline and Government

of the Church of England, or the vindicating and clearing

of the doctrine of the same from all false aspersions and

misconstructions....-Warfield, pg. 12.

THE INCREASING DANGER OF THECONFLICT (1641-42)

THE MURDEROUS CONSPIRACIES OFCHARLES I

In May, 1641, a plot was uncovered to bring the roya

army into London, rescue Strafford from the Tower, and

take possession of London. When the plot was discovered

the conspirators fled to France. The effect of this discovery

was like a lightning flashsudden and fatal. It revealed

to the community their own peril, and the nature of the

measures which the king was capable of pursuing; and

thus it drove them to the conclusion that his word or treaty

could not be trusted, and that the only method of securing

their own safety consisted in depriving him of all powerto injure them.- Hetherington, pg. 85.

THE TYRANNICAL NEED FOR INCREASEDTAXATION

Charles I was anxious that the Scottish army return to

Scotland, since its presence in England, (since Charles

abortive war with Scotland), was an encouragement to the

Reformed element of the population, squelching his own

military preparations. He urged Parliament to raise money

to support his own army, and not the Scottish army. But

when the plot against London was detected, the people of

London would not contribute taxes.8

THE ATTEMPT TO RALLY SCOTLAND TO THEKING AGAINST ENGLAND

The Parliament abolished the pro-crown Court of High

Commission and the Star-Chamber, thus destroying the

main engines of oppression. The king, perceiving that he

was not winning this war with Parliament, changed his

tactics, and suddenly let it be known to Parliament that he

intended to visit Scotland, ostensibly to pacify the Scots. A

treaty was concluded between the king and the Scots, and

the king returned home. Leading members of Parliamentdiscovered his true intentions in going to Scotlandhe

was trying to convince the Scots to detach their army from

support of Parliament to himself, so that he could easily

reduce his resistant subjects to submission to his absolute

rule. He tried to buy off the Scottish Covenanters, and, o8 The burden of maintaining the Scottish army in England was oppressive. The House of Common

had already borrowed large sums for the payment of current expenses; and a still larger sum would b

required for the completion of the transaction. But when the plot against the Parliament was detecte

the citizens of London, who had hitherto advanced the necessary supplies on Parliamentary securit

refused to contribute any more on a security which appeared to be so precarious. Public credit being th

overthrown, the only expedient for its recovery which presented itself was, to secure the continuation

the Parliament ti ll these troubles should terminate. -Hetherington, HISTORY OF THE WESTMINSTE

ASSEMBLY, pg. 85.




12

course, he failed.

THE INCIDENT

Before the kings arrival in Scotland, the Earl of

Montrose had been detected forming a conspiracy to

betray the Covenanters, even while acting as one of their

commissioners at Ripon (meeting with Charles I). For

this, and other similar matters, he had been imprisoned

in Edinburgh Castle. Even in his confinement he found

means of corresponding with his associates, and, through

them, with the king; and a plot was formed, of which there

is strong reason to believe the king to have been aware,

to seize Argyle and Hamilton, (two Scottish nobles) and

either put them to death, or hurry them on board a frigate

which lay in Leith roads, and having thus struck terror

into the Covenanters, to put the army into the hands of the

king, at the head of which his majesty might return and

overpower his refractory Parliament in England. This

event, known by the name of The Incident, sunk deep

into mens minds, and led them to entertain the belief,that the king was capable of conniving at any measure,

however dark and bloody, provided that it could promote

his progress towards absolute despotism. The fearful

outburst of Popish fury, termed the Irish Massacre, taking

place at the same time, gave to all these suspicions the

most dark and dreadful aspect, and filled the heart of both

England and Scotland with intense horror and alarm.-

Hetherington, pgs. 88-89.

THE KINGS CALL TO ARMS AGAINSTPARLIAMENT (1642)

In exasperation with Parliament, the king would retaliate

against their assaults on prelacy. In 1642, he impeached

five leading members of the House for Commons of

high treason. On April 23, 1642, he led a large calvary

with the intention of seizing the important town of Hull,

and taking possession of their ammunition supplies. He

was refused by a Parliament-appointed city official. So,

in his rage, the king declared him a traitor. The breach

continued to widen until there was a complete disruption

between king and Parliament. Considerable numbers of

both Houses forsook the Parliament and joined the king;

an army was formed, and Hull was invested in regularform. To meet this hostile movement, the two Houses, on

the 12th of July, resolved that an army should be raised

for the defense of the king and Parliament, and gave the

command to the Earl of Essex. On the 9th of August, the

king proclaimed

Essex and his adherents traitors; and also declared both

Houses guilty of high treason, forbidding all his subjects

to yield obedience to them. The Parliament, on the

other hand, proclaimed all who should join the kings

army traitors against the Parliament and the kingdom.

Hetherington, pg. 92.

On August 22, 1642, the king rallied all his faithfu

supporters to himself at Nottingham. Few complied with

this warlike summons; but the standard was erected amid

the gathering gloom and the rising gusts of a commencing

tempest, which, ere evening, increased to a perfect

hurricane, and dashed to the earth the royal banner, as ifominous of the fierce storm of civil war then bursting on

the land, and the disgrace and ruin that awaited the roya

cause. It had for some time been clearly perceived by the

Parliament that war was inevitable, especially after the

kings attempt upon Hull; and they accordingly began to

make all necessary preparations.- Hetherington, pg. 92.

THE SEEKING OF AID FROM SCOTLAND(1643)

THE SYMPATHY & RECOMMENDATION

OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND WITHPARLIAMENT

Scotland tried to mediate between the English king

and Parliament; but, although the Parliament accepted

her mediation, the king refused, ordering them not to

intermeddle with the affairs of another nation. The English

Parliament, knowing that the General Assembly of the

Church of Scotland was about to meet, communicated with

that body the serious state of affairs in England, expressed

the desire of Parliament to avoid civil war and to promote

reformation in church and state. The Assemblys response

expressed sympathy for those facing danger in Englandand recommended that the only solution to the situation

and the only way to avoid war was to have national unity

in the Christian Faith, that in all his majestys dominion

there might be one Confession of Faith, one Directory of

Worship, one public Catechism, and one form of Church

government.- Hetherington, pg. 93.

THE DESIRE IN ENGLAND FOR APRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND

A REFORMED CONFESSION

A number of Reformed leaders from England also sent a

communication to the Scottish Assembly stating that thedesire of the most godly and considerable part amongst us

is, that the Presbyterian government, which hath just and

evident foundation, both in the Word of God and religious

reason, may be established amongst us, and that...we

may agree in one Confession of Faith, one Directory of

Worship, one public Catechism and form of government.1

From these expressions it is evident that both the English

Parliament and the Puritan divines were perfectly aware

of the views entertained by the Scottish Parliament and



Joe Morecraft III

13

Assembly; and yet did not hesitate to seek assistance, and

to assent to the idea of a uniformity in religious worship,

which Scotland regarded as an indispensable condition.

Nor does it appear that the English Parliament entertained

any reluctance to procure Scottish aid on such terms.-

Hetherington, pgs. 93-94.

THE MILITARY CONFLICT

The military conflict had begun in earnest. Several battles

were fought, mostly to the disadvantage of the Parliament.

As winter approached, hostilities ceased and a peace treaty

was attempted at Oxford, in hopes that the king would

agree to terms which might restore the peace without

the surrender of liberty. But it was soon discovered that

the king was involved in another traitorous plot, which

revealed his continuing duplicity. Military conflict was

resumed, and the kings troops were repeatedly successful.

Therefore, Parliament recognized the urgency of a close

alliance with Scotland.

THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT(1643)

THE APPEAL TO SCOTLAND

The English Parliament made its appeal for Scottish

assistance against the king in the summer of 1643.

Scotland, for decades, had been a Presbyterian and

Reformed nation, and a covenanted nation. The English

nation wanted an alliance with Scotland to secure her

CIVIL LIBERTY; and Scotland wanted an alliance with

England to preserve her RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Any

compact between them had to be both a political, militaryalliance and a religious covenant, if both parties were to

be satisfied.

THE COURAGE AND COMPASSION OFSCOTLAND

The Scots, indeed, had nothing to gain from the alliance

which was offered them, unless they gained security for

their Church from future English interference; while on

the other hand by entering into it they risked everything

which they had at such great cost recovered for themselves.

Their own liberties were already regained; the cause ofParliament in England on the contrary, hung in the gravest

doubt. It really was an act of high chivalry, to call it by

no more sacred name, for them to cast their lot at this

crisis with the Parliament; and more than one Scot must

have cried to himself during the ensuring years, Surelie

it was a great act of faith in God, and hudge courage and

unheard of compassion, that moved our nation to hazard

their own peace, and venture their lives and all, for to save

a people so irrecoverablie ruined both in their owne and

all the worlds eyes.(Baillie) On the other hand, the Scots

demanded nothing more than that the Parliament should

explicitly bind itself to the course it was on its own accoun

loudly professing to be following...the reconstruction of

the English Church. All that was asked of the Parliament..was...that it should give greater precision, and binding

force under the sanction of a solemn covenant, to its

repeatedly declared purpose.-Warfield, pg. 23.

THE HEART OF THE SOLEMN LEAGUE ANDCOVENANT

The result was THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND

COVENANT9, by which the two nations, England and

Scotland, bound themselves to each other. It was sworn

to by the English Parliament, the Westminster Assembly

the Scottish parliament, and the General Assembly ofthe Scottish Church. It was then sent out throughout the

two countries to be subscribed by the entire population

The date for this historic event was SEPTEMBER 25

1643.10

The two covenanting nations bound themselves to the

preservation of the reformed religion in the Church o

Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government

against our common enemies, on the one hand; and on

the other to the reformation of religion in the kingdoms

of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline

and government, according to the word of God and theexample of the best reformed Churches; to the end that

thereby the Churches of God in the three kingdoms migh

be brought to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in

religion, confession of faith, form of Church government

directory for worship and catechizing.- Warfield, pg

24.

9 The full text of The Solemn League and Covenant can be found in the Free Presbyterian Church

Scotland publication of the Westminster Standards and, as an appendix, in TO GLORIFY AND ENJOY

GOD, published by The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.

10 Portions of The Solemn League and Covenant can be found at the conclusion of this paper in a

appendix entitled: The Solemn League and Covenant, pg. 80.




14

THE IMPACT OF THE SOLEMN LEAGUE ANDCOVENANT UPON THE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE WESTMINSTERASSEMBLY

The signing of this covenant11 had a great impact on

the Westminster Assembly. From July-September, 1643,

the Assembly was simply vindicating and clarifying the

doctrinal statement of the Church of England, i.e., TheThirty-Nine Articles. The divines had worked through the

sixteen articles, when the covenant was put into force.

This changed everything. Now the Assembly would not

simply be a body of counselors to the Parliament on

church affairs, it would have vastly increased significance

and heightened dignity. It would have a wholly new

definiteness to the work which should be required of it,

with respect both to its compass and its aim. Whatever else

Parliament might call on the Assembly to advise it in, it

would now necessarily call on it to propose to it a new Form

of Church Government, a new Directory for Worship, a

new Confession of Faith, and a new Catechetical Manual.

And in framing these formularies the aim of the Assembly

would now necessarily be to prepare forms, which might

be acceptable not merely to the Church of England..., but

also to the Church of Scotland as preserving the doctrines,

worship, discipline, government already established in

that Church. The significance of the Solemn League and

Covenant was, therefore, that it pledged the two nations to

uniformity in their religious establishments and pledged

them to a uniformity on the model of the establishment

already existing in the Church of Scotland.- Warfield,

pg. 26.

THE PRODUCTIONS OF THE

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY

THE FORM OF PRESBYTERIAL CHURCHGOVERNMENT (1644)

THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES OF CHURCHGOVERNMENT

The Biblical principles upon which this book of church

order produced by the Westminster Assembly are: (1).

The all-sufficient authority of the Bible as the Word of

God. There is a form of government prescribed for the

church in the Word of God, and that form is Presbyterian or

ecclesiastical republicanism. (2). The exclusive kingship

of Jesus Christ over His church. The Lord Jesus Christ,

as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a

government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from

the civil magistrate. (XXX:I)12 ...To these officers the11 It must be remembered that The Solemn League and Covenant was not some loose agreement

between two churches. It was a solemnly ratified treaty between two nationsScotland and England.

12 Although the overwhelming consensus in the Westminster Assembly among the vast majority of its

members on this issue, (XXX: 1), the entire chapter XXX was omitted from the version of the Westminster

keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue

whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain and remi

sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by

the Word and censures (discipline).... (XXX:2) The civi

magistrate may not assume to himself the administration

of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of

the kingdom of heaven.... (XXIII: 3).

The Preface to The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government sets forth the exclusive and total kingship

of Christ over His Church with unmistakable clarity

Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulders the government is

whose name is called Wonderful, Couselor, The Mighty

God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace; of the

increase of whose government and peace there shall be

no end; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon his

kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and

justice, from henceforth, even forever; having all power

given unto Him in heaven and in earth by the Father, who

raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right

hand, far above all principalities and power, and might

and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in

this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all

things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over

all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness o

Him that filleth all in all: He being ascended up far above

all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for

His church, and gave officers necessary for the edification

of His church, and perfecting of His saints.13

THE UNFINISHED BOOK OF CHURCHGOVERNMENT AND ORDER

The Assemblys final production on church government

has an unpolished and unfinished appearance, due to the

restraints and disagreements of Parliament on this issue and

the political turmoil of its day. Therefore the permanent

influence of the labors of the Westminster Assembly

in the great matter of church organization...has been

largely unofficial and somewhat indirect. Indeed, it is

questionable whether the really great works of individua

members of the Assembly on these topics...must not be

conceived the chief vehicles of this influence.17 The mos

that can be said for the formal work of the Assembly in

this field is that it gave ungrudgingly an immense amoun

of self-denying labor to preparing devices for the use of

Parliament in settling the government of the Church of

England on a Presbyterian model, but was prevented by

the circumstances in which it did its work from doing

full justice in these documents either to its own clear

convictions or to the system with which it was dealing.

Confession approved by the English Parliament!

13 See George Gillespies Aarons Rod Blossoming, (1646); Samuel Rutherfords Due Right

Presbytery, (1644); and Alexander Hendersons The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland

(1641, 1690).



Joe Morecraft III

15

Warfield, pg. 44.14

THE PARTIES WITHIN THE WESTMINSTERASSEMBLY

Although there was solid, theological and doctrine unity

among the members of the assembly, all of whom were

devout and thorough-going Calvinists, there was strong

disagreement among them regarding church government,church discipline and the relation of church and state.

(1). The Episcopalians, opposed prelacy, i.e., bishops

acting as civil magistrates, but favored a moderate

episcopal form of church government. Some of them

did become convinced of presbyterianism during the

debates in the Assembly. (2). The Independents favored

non-connectional, autonomous local congregational

government, with no organization beyond that. Although

they were only five in number, hence referred to as the

five dissenting brethren, they were brilliant men, strong

debaters, and to one degree or another were supported by

Cromwell and his army. They were obstructive in their

tactics in the assembly, desiring to delay or defeat the

adoption of a Presbyterian government of the church,

although the majority favored it. (3). The Presbyterians,

who were the overwhelming majority, favored

representative church government by a plurality of elders

with parity, in congregations connected organizationally

by a common confession of faith and church government,

distinct from the civil government, with Christ as its

organic and organizational head, who governed by His

Word and Spirit.

At the outset of the Assembly, most English divines

believed that Presbyterianism was the system of church

government most consistent with the principles of church

polity taught in the New Testament. But, the Scottish

divinesBaillie, Henderson, Gillespie and Rutherford

all of whom believed in Presbyterianism by divine right,

i.e., that it is the only system of church government

prescribed in the Bible, soon convinced the majority of

their viewpoint.

Then there were (4). the Erastians, who comprised a small

but learned group (of two or three), who were supported

by many in Parliament, but who got nowhere in the

Assembly, which was decidedly anti-erastian. And last,

but in no way least, was (5). the Scottish delegation of

commissioners, who were not voting members but who

had the privilege to speak and to enter into debate. Their

small number of about five included preaching elders and

14 It fell...to the lot of the Scots to hold back the English Presbyterians from precipitate and aggressive

action. It was their policy to obtain if possible a settlement not so much imposed by a majority as at least

acceptable to all. They therefore gave themselves not merely to conciliate the minor differences which

emerged in the debate...but even to satisfy1 the small but able band of Independents in the Assembly....

The Independents, on their part, adopted an obstructive policy, and set themselves not only to obtain every

concession it was possible t o wring from the majority....- Warfield, pg. 37.

ruling elders, however, they exerted a dominant influence

on the entire Assembly. They were official commissioners

of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

which had a century of presbyterian and reformed history

behind them. The ministers among them were Alexande

Henderson, Samuel Rutherford, Robert Baillie and George

Gillespie.

THE WILD GROWTH OF RELIGIOUS SECTS

THE SPRINGING UP OF NUMEROUS SECTS

During the 1640s England experienced the wild and

unbridled growth of numerous and pernicious, religious

sects which were hostile to everything that had a previous

and authorized existence. These sects sprung up even

before the Long Parliament, holding all various shades

of opinion in religious matters, from such as were simply

absurd, down to those that were licentiously wild and

daringly blasphemous.- Hetherington, pg. 148.

THE REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THESESECTS

How is it that these sects appeared in a nation with a

national church under the head of state? How could so

many people follow such absurd and pernicious errors?

The answer is to be found in the way the Church of

England, (prelacy), had GOVERNED, and in the way it

had TAUGHT the people of England.

THE GOVERNMENT OF PRELACYFirst, regarding the way prelacy GOVERNED the people

Since the days of Henry VIII, with the blending of churchand state, and the declaration of the king as the head of

the church, had come civil and ecclesiastical tyranny

It imposed ceremonies on the church not found in the

Word of God. It intruded into the form and language of

worship, ordering a person how to worship and what to

say and do in worship, without regard to the Creators

commands. It presumed to exercise absolute control over

the doctrines which the ministers were to teach, thus

rashly interfering not merely with mans approach to God

but also with Gods message to man. The extreme poin

of spiritual despotism was reached, when the king and his

prelates authoritatively commanded the Lords Day to be

violated, and forbade any other but the Arminian system

of doctrine to be preached. Hence it appears that Prelatic

Church government had proved itself to be a complete

and oppressive despotism, increasing in severity as it

increased in power.- Hetherington, pg. 150. During this

period it silenced or rejected large numbers of the ables

preachers in the nation without mercy. Such tyranny could

only create a strong reaction from people like the English

causing them, in the violence of the revulsion and recoil


13/13


to regard every form of ecclesiastical government as

inevitably tyrannical.... In this manner Prelatic tyranny was

the very cause why so many sects sprung up, repudiating

every kind of ecclesiastical government.- Hetherington,

pg. 150.

THE TEACHING OF PRELACY

Second, regarding the way prelacy TAUGHT the people.

Teaching the people was not considered by the Church

of England as a necessary part of its duty. There is an

obvious reason for this. In a church where a tyrannical

king is supreme, it is a dangerous thing to have preaching

and teaching by the church, for that creates an intelligent

and truly religious people, who cannot be enslaved. And

perhaps...the reason why parochial schools were never

instituted in England, is to be found in the same despotic

principle which led the English kings and Church to wish

the people to remain ignorant, that they might be the easier

kept in a state of blind subjection. It will be remembered

also, that whenever the Puritan ministers became whatwas thought troublesome, in their endeavors to teach their

poor and ignorant countrymen, they were immediately

silenced.- Hetherington, pg. 151. Therefore, it is almost

mockery to say that the Prelacy ever attempted to teach

the people of England at all.

Such had been the GOVERNING and such the

TEACHING of Prelacy in England; and it was not strange

that men, groaning under oppression, and kept in utter

darkness, should wrench asunder their fetters furiously,

and should be dazzled when they rushed at once into

unwonted light. Thus is was easy for any man whopossessed sufficient fluency of speech to impose upon an

excited and ignorant people, to gain a number of adherents

to his opinions, and to become the founder and leader of a

sect.- Hetherington, pgs. 151-52.

THE CONTRAST OF SCOTLAND ANDENGLAND

But consider Scotland during this growth of sects in

England. After the restoration of Charles II (1660s),

the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was violently

overthrown, and its adherents subjected to twenty-eight

years of terrific and relentless persecution. Did the people

of Scotland split into innumerable and extravagant

sects, when thus deprived of their religious teachers,

and oppressed with the most remorseless cruelty? They

did not. What caused this remarkable difference?

One answer only can be giventhe superiority of the

Presbyterian system, which had so thoroughly instructed

the people, that they could and did retain their calm and

regulated consistency of doctrine and character in the

midst of every maddening and delusive element; while, on

the other hand, when the Prelatic government of England

was broken up, its oppressed and ignorant people rushed

headlong into the most wild, extravagant, and pernicious

errors.- Hetherington, pgs. 151-152.

THE EFFECTS OF THESE SECTS UPON THEWESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY

The effects of these many sects upon the proceedings ofthe Westminster Assembly were pernicious. Although the

Independents in the Assembly did not openly avow any

connection with these swarming sects, nevertheless, they

communicated with them and often defended them to

secure their support, so as to increase their numbers. In so

doing, they retarded the progress of the Assembly.

TO BE CONTINUED.

A Doxology for the DoxologyDid you know that the Doxology originally had three

stanzas? Thomas Ken, the author, was a minister and

held various positions in England. He originally penned

three verses to the Doxology. They were first written to

to encourage the devotional habits of boys under his

care as chaplain of a school in 1674.

His intention was that one verse was to be sung upon

waking, another at bedtime, and the third at midnight

if sleep did not easily come. Of course today, we can

modify that plan to morning, noon, and night, and change

the order to 1, 3, and 2.

1. Awake, my soul, and with the sun

thy daily stage of duty run;

Shake off dull sloth and joyful rise, to pay thy

morning sacrifice.

2. All praise to Thee, my God, this night,

for all the blessings of the light!

Keep me, O keep me, King of kings, beneath Thine

own almighty wings.

3. Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;

Praise Him, all creatures here below;

Praise Him above, ye heavenly host; Praise Father,

Son, and Holy Ghost.

From Then Sings My Soul, a collection of 150 of the

Worlds Greatest Hymn Stories, by Robert J.

Morgan.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chalcedon-presbyterian-church
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

2006 Issue 4 - Authentic Christianity: Studies in the Westminster Standards Part 2 - Counsel of...

Documents