Table of Contents
- Updated item (correction)
- Introduction
- I. What the Difference is Not
- II. What the Difference is
- III. Defending the Indefensible: A Brief Refutation of a Brief Defence
-
IV. Concluding Remarks: Terms of Communion and Supposed Attainments
Introduction
I believe it is fairly certain, even as we prepare to place these words and history before the view of the world, that many will regard this dispute to be little else than a "tempest in a teapot." In large measure I find I must agree. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton (PRCE) does not have a Presbyterian background except insofar as they have, in turn, seceded from the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the Americas and most lately the Reformation Presbyterian Church (RPC). Further, it must be admitted that the particular error into which PRCE has fallen is not one which has affected the church at large. Many in the church may be prepared to advise us in the words of Gamaliel, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:" (Acts 5:38)
Though PRCE has isolated itself ecclesiastically so as to be free from any oversight and restraint, the church is not isolated from public view. On the contrary, the church is quite vocal and zealous in its attempts to draw members away from true churches of Christ and to isolate them in "societies" or even in private family worship. The PRCE session do not believe themselves compelled to answer in any church court, for they have, in their exaggerated opinion, the only truly constituted church court to be found upon the face of the earth today (see letter of PRCE Clerk of Session and Brian Schwertley's warning).
Ecclesiastical isolation does not work itself out in this case in such a way that no damage is being done to the body of Christ. PRCE has a considerable forum via Still Waters Revival Books (SWRB) and the world wide web of the Internet. Further, they have used their forum to denounce true churches and ministers of Christ in very immoderate language. It is my desire and prayer to respond to the insults of PRCE not as they were personal or even as they are unjust accusations. Recently on their web page they accused me and even an entire denomination of apostasy. Note, not simply error or mistaken opinion, but apostasy has been charged against me personally and the entire Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) denomination. Significantly, these charges have not been brought in a forum in which the innocent may face his accusers or where the accuser bears a burden of proof. No, rather, this harshness has been brought only to the back fence gossip-mill. Leviticus 19:16, 18, etc.
It is therefore with perhaps something of the spirit of John Calvin that I write this introduction to the error in which the PRCE session has embroiled itself. "There will doubtless be some things which will sting, or it may be, speak daggers to your mind, but it will be my endeavor, first, not to allow any harsher expression to escape me than either the injustice of the accusations with which you have previously assailed me, or the necessity of the case may extort; and, secondly, not to allow any degree of harshness which may amount to intemperance or passion, or which may, by its appearance of petulance, give offence to ingenuous minds." 1
Several men, including your present author, have gone to the PRCE over the past eighteen months and more, entreating them in modest terms and in private and semi-private ways to give up their error and return to the larger flock of Christ. When offense has inadvertently been given them, the trespass has been confessed, forgiveness asked and seemingly given. It has never been the intention of the RPC presbytery (RPCp) or of this author to give offense needlessly, to answer reviling with reviling, or to use the same strident language with which we have been addressed by them.
However, because more modest means have not prevailed; because these men desire not a dialogue but a diatribe; because they have such a public profile and have since May of 1996 made their case in a public way, it has now become necessary for us to answer their error in a public way. This we propose to do in two ways:
First, it is our intention by making the correspondence between the PRCE and other members of the RPC and its churches public, to demonstrate that we have, in fact, made use of more private and modest means of reconciliation. We will leave it to the reader to determine for himself if the PRCE session has been reasonable or easily entreated.
Second, the remainder of this introduction to the Steelite2 controversy will form a defense of historic, second reformation Presbyterianism against the rigidity of the strict covenanter position. A recent SWRB catalogue claimed in two places that PRCE's paper A Brief Defence of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances "is the best short introduction to questions regarding the visible church and separation which we list" (emphasis in original). If the claim is true that Brief Defense is the best the Steelites have to offer, then it only makes sense that we review it. If it can be shown that the best the Steelites have to offer is unable to support their position, then the controversy is at an end. Hopefully, after reading the rest of this introduction the reader will have a better idea of what the difference between us is and what it is not: it comes down to nothing less than the proper relationship between church law and Scripture.
I. What the Difference is Not
It is easy when in the midst of a controversy either to look for every possible difference or to misconstrue with a vexing animosity the words and actions of those with whom we disagree. Let us begin therefore by clearing some possible diversions which some could mistake for the actual issue of debate. First, we do not accuse the PRCE of not being a true church of Christ. We do not think they are a true church for the same reason they think they are, but we do regard them as truly constituting a local branch of Christ’s church.
We agree fully with the Scots Confession of 1560 (see supra), which states "The Notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the immaculate spouse of Christ Jesus is known from that horrible harlot the Kirk malignant, we affirm are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal descent, place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an error... The Notes, however, of the true Kirk of God we confess and avow to be, first, The true preaching of the word of God; into the which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the Prophets and Apostles do declare. Secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed to the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts. Last[ly], Ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished. Wheresoever then these former notes are seen, and of any time continue (be the number never so few as above two or three) there, but all doubt, is the true Kirk of Christ.... When controversy then happeneth for the right understanding of any place or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to look what men before us have said or done, as unto that which the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of Scriptures and unto that which Christ Jesus Himself did and commanded to be done." 3
In quoting the 1560 confession in defense of the PRCE’s status as a true church of Christ, we do not mean that we agree with the terms of communion of the PRCE or that everyone the session of 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 rightly being called a true church of Christ.
The issue between the Steelites and the rest of the body of Christ is not whether we today should practice the ordinance of public covenanting. Not only do the Steelites believe public covenanting is for our present day, so too does the RPC and the RPCNA. In reality every church that practices baptism believes in public covenanting. It is not so clear and central with others of God’s people, but when we baptize we are covenanting publicly in an engagement to be the Lord’s. However the RPC is actually joined together by a covenant. It is a covenant that PRCE has chosen to break, that is true, but it a covenant nonetheless (Minutes, July 1995).
We believe that a covenant is a kind of oath, and our confession of faith teaches, "Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weight of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth...." Further, "that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty...."4 A vow or oath or covenant made out of convenience or rashness or intimidation, far from pleasing God, is an affront to him and a serious violation of the third commandment. We deny that those without lawful authority may impose covenants on others. That is, an inferior cannot impose a covenant upon a superior, nor can one without jurisdiction impose a covenant at all.
Neither is the difference between us worship practice. Are they Psalm-singers? So are we. Do they believe and practice purity of worship? So do we. Do they condemn such innovations in worship as dance and drama? So do we. In fact, the only difference between us on any of these practices is that we have practiced these longer. Have they been hounded or persecuted for their beliefs? Have they stood as sheep among wolves? Have they lost friend, neighbor and loved one for their insistence upon the truth of God’s word? So have we. In all these areas the grace of God has been manifest upon us. No, the difference between the PRCE and the RPC is not a matter of worship practice.
The difference between the PRCE and the RPC is not over creedal subscription. We subscribe fully and without reservation to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. In fact, our officers are required to declare that we "do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith." This formula, in full, is to be subscribed by probationers before receiving license, and by all ministers, elders, and deacons at the time of their admission. There should be no question at all about the strictness with which we hold the Confession. Any who have known either First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett or the RPC should have no question in that regard.
It is clearer now than it ever has been that the difference between us is not in our opposition to papacy and prelacy. There was a time in the recent history of PRCE in which some of the session were of a mind to change our confession such that it was not necessary to confess that the Pope is antichrist. By God’s grace, they were able to overcome that error such that they now say the same as our Confession of Faith.
Finally, while they perhaps would not allow this to be the case, our difference is not about the level of our commitment to Scottish Second Reformation Presbyterianism. In my discussion below of what our actual differences are, I will quote quite freely from the divines of seventeenth century Scotland. We have some decided disagreements about what men such as Rutherford were saying, but our regard for the second reformation in Scotland is second to none. In fact, in many instances it will be seen that the historical stream which PRCE navigates is empty save for them. The understanding of virtually every other scholar, both Scottish and American, would have to be wrong in order for PRCE to be correct. We will leave that verdict to the God of history as well as truth.
The First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett and the RPC would together proclaim that those things above listed which do not divide us from the Steelites generally nor from the PRCE in particular are all good things. Each of the beliefs or practices mentioned is one that is required by God himself, which is to say that each item is a moral duty. Therefore, in each of those duties which the PRCE keeps out of a true love for God and neighbor and for the sole glory of God it is to be commended.
II. What the Difference Between us is:
Essentially the difference between the RPC and PRCE is that the RPC maintains that a church can be truly and biblically constituted without swearing the Solemn League and Covenant (SL&C) and the PRCE claims that a church is not a properly, truly, biblically constituted church if it has not formally adopted the SL&C. It is important to set out from the beginning that these views are actual contradictories. As contradictories the statements cannot both be true and the statements cannot both be false. One statement (either that of the RPC or that of the PRCE) must be true and the other statement must be false.
Neither is this a minor distinction. The Reformed and Presbyterian churches maintain that the church is built on the apostles and prophets, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The Romanist church maintains that the church is built upon Scripture plus the traditions of the church. Without the tradition there is no true constitution. While the content of the traditions differ between the Roman Catholic Church and the Steelites, the principle is the same: without the "right" tradition, no constitutional church can exist. This distinction is essential to the very definition of Protestantism. Epistemologically speaking, sola scriptura is prior even to sola fide or solo Christo.
Now we declare at the same time, that while we will not be driven in conscience by the doctrine and commandments of men, there is a place for human constitutions which are founded on divine authority and derived from Scripture. We confess together with Calvin, "as [God] has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstance of each age and nation, it will appear proper, as the interests of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe." 5
It must seem strange to some who are reading this to be faced with the fact that there are some who call themselves Protestants — yea, Reformed and Presbyterian Protestants — who appear to place their own traditions as the constitution of the church rather than Scripture. We maintain that Scripture is prior to the church and the church is founded upon Scripture. The Steelites are fond of quoting Augustine’s famous dictum that he would not have believed the Scriptures, had not the Authority of the Church moved him. We agree rather with the Reformed professor who observed that the Calvinistic Reformation was nothing less than the triumph of Augustine’s soteriology over Augustine’s ecclesiology. It was precisely the belief that the church is epistemologically prior to Scripture that plunged the church and all of western civilization into the Babylonian captivity of the church until 1517ff, when the Protestant Reformation brought freedom.
Reader, please remember that the issue is not whether the Solemn League and Covenant is an edifying document. The issue is not whether it is lawful for a church to accept and adopt the SL&C. The issue is not whether the SL&C is an historically important document. The issue is strictly whether the SL&C is a necessary document in order for a church to be a properly, truly, biblically constituted church. We will deal in some detail in a later portion of this introduction with the Steelite six terms of communion, but for now we simply note term of communion number four: "That public, social covenanting, is an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament." So far, so good (except for comma placement). The fourth term continues, "That the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution." Still no argument. One might wonder at this point what this has to do with a "term of communion." We must continue, "and that these Deeds [i.e. the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England and Ireland] are a continued obligation upon the moral person...."
The term "moral person" may present just a bit of confusion to those not familiar with seventeenth century ecclesiology. By "moral person" the Steelite document refers to all those who are part of a covenantal "unit." Thus a family, a church, and a nation are all moral persons because God treats with them as they are covenanted units. I suppose a school or a business could be a moral person if the right conditions were met, though I have not seen any Steelite literature extending the term in that way.
So, then, we account the Solemn League and Covenant an edifying historical document which contains in it several moral duties. But we deny that the existence of moral duties within a document binds subsequent generations of the church to the historical and accidental aspects of the document. As Calvin said, these things should be "accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation." It should further be noted that whatever in a document is a moral duty is a moral duty so far and only so far as it is a direct application of God’s moral law.
III. Defending the Indefensible: A Brief Refutation of a Brief Defence.
The PRCE session wrote a (Brief Defence) paper purporting to explain the unilateral dissociation of the PRCE from the RPCp in late March, 1996. By way of background, just prior to this time the session of PRCE asked for a postponement of the February Presbytery meeting of the RPC to April (a 60 day postponement) because they were working on an "overture" to present to presbytery on the subject of separating from corrupt churches. They contacted the clerk of presbytery, who in turn contacted the moderator of Presbytery. The two of them proceeded to poll the remainder of the presbytery and it was agreed from a spirit of love and accommodation to accede to PRCE’s request to postpone the meeting so as to give them time to compose an overture. It was explained verbally that standard procedure is for the clerk to have overtures in his hands at least 30 days prior to a meeting so he can send them out to the presbyters in order to give them time to consider all the ramifications of the overture and thus be able to debate and vote on the substance of the overture in an intelligent manner. Though we were assured after granting the postponement that this was not an attempt at government by ambush, and though the PRCE session wrote an overture dated March 8, 1996,6 two weeks later the RPCp received a booklet by a nineteenth century Reformed Presbyterian minister on the subject of close communion — and a unilateral dissociation. Thus what the RPCp had in hand when it met in presbytery in April 1996, was the overture dated March 8, 1996, and the Dissociation dated March 26, 1996.
The dissociation paper stated rather boldly, "Let the RPC prove that it is a constitutionally true church while refusing to own the covenants as a term of communion, and we will repent of what would then be a sinful separation and immediately unite with it." This demonstrates two things about their dissociation: first, it proves that PRCE, regardless of confused and confusing statements to the contrary, considers "the covenants" to be a necessary sine qua non of a church’s constitution if that church is to be considered a true church. Second, they admit that this is the only cause of the separation. By offering to reunite if this one item can be cleared, they have effectively reduced the difference to this one.
The Defence begins by assuming that their action will be construed as "schism, separatism, and independency." As we will hopefully see, there is good reason for them to suppose as much. We have seen earlier what Paul regarded as the proper church constitution in Ephesians 2:20. We also noted that the 1560 Scots Confession allowed three "Notes" of a true church. The PRCE session rightly states "a false constitution renders a church and its courts unconstitutional." However, there is not a single word or proposition in the entirety of the paper demonstrating even one unbiblical tenet believed, practiced, or adopted by the RPC. In fact, even if it were the case that it is necessary for a church to adopt the Solemn League and Covenant — an idea which cannot be proved — even then the situation with the RPC was not irremediable. The PRCE session was not only free to bring an overture asking the RPC to adopt the SL&C; the RPCp had postponed its meeting for 60 days in order to allow the PRCE session time to prepare its best case for such an adoption.
The PRCE session claims "to adopt a constitution that corrupts the light of Scripture or the light of reformation is to adopt a false constitution." So much is true as it stands. But we must understand that when a Steelite speaks of the light of Scripture and the light of reformation he is not being redundant. There can be "light of reformation" for the Steelite that has nothing at all to do with Scripture. This is the role of the so-called "testimony" of the church. A false constitution, then by Steelite standards, is simply one that does not include the Solemn League and Covenant.
The Brief Defence goes on in the next paragraph to list some particular errors, which in the opinion of the PRCE session would qualify a church that had these errors built into its constitution to be a constitutionally false church. Significantly, none of the errors listed by the PRCE session had anything at all to do with their reason for dissociation. It was simply a list of eight or so red herrings. The closest any of them came was what they characterized as "unrestricted communion (false discipline)." Of course that also is not the position of the RPC, but it at least gets close to what they were accusing us of.
After admitting that authority to rule in the church must come from Christ, the session of PRCE states that a church must have a constitution of which Christ approves. Surely we agree that Christ is the only lawgiver in the church (James 4:12), but we dispute that Christ approves only constitutions that contain the Solemn League and Covenant. The PRCE session has again made the SL&C a necessary part of a church’s constitution.
The PRCE’s Brief Defence, proceeds to confuse Scripture and history as it quotes repeatedly from J. K. Hewison’s The Covenanters.7 Hewison recounts how non-subscribers of the National Covenant of 1638 (another document which the Steelites believe to be necessary to the constitution of a true church) were censured. It is not clear what form that censure was to take. The form of church-government of the Westminster Assembly was not adopted by the church of Scotland until February 1645. That document, which the Church of Scotland adopted as being agreeable to the word of God listed admonishment and rebuke as church censures as well as authoritative suspension from the Lord’s table.
Even in PRCE’s use of Hewison they are somewhat selective and arbitrary. Though the Kirkcaldy Presbytery enacted censures against those who refused to sign the National Covenant of 1638, not all presbyteries followed suit. For example, in Johnston’s Treasure of the Covenant we learn that Zachary Boyd (1589-1653) never [
cc: this is a
mistake, click here for correction] signed the National
Covenant of 1638.8
We do not suggest that Boyd's failure to sign his church's Confession of Faith was commendable. It was not. Yet significantly we see Boyd being assigned to
committees (and apparently even heading up those committees) of the General Assembly as
late as 1647 and following. We find it more than curious that not only was Boyd apparently
not censured by his presbytery (which was admittedly one of the weaker in the entire
church), the General Assembly, as the highest court in the church, not only refrained from
censuring him — they placed him in a position of some considerable
honor.9But even if the censures extended all the way to suspension from the table, it must be remembered that they were at that time administering a human constitution, not a divine constitution. And as Calvin reminded us, human constitutions "should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation." Surely even the dullest student of ecclesiastic discipline will allow that the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant were historically and nationally for a different time and place and circumstance.
The paper on dissociation goes on to speak of the Protester and Resolutioner split in the church of Scotland as though it were germane to our nation and time. We admit that there are many lessons to be learned from that split — most of which are found in James Durham’s A Treatise Concerning Scandal.10 Durham spoke on the subject of church union even if it should be the case that not all unfaithful men (such as the Resolutioners for example) could be immediately deposed at the time of the union. He wrote, "Union, when it is in competition with the deposing of some unfaithful men, and both cannot be obtained together, ought to be preferred, as we see the Apostle does (2 Corinthians 10:6), who will not censure in such a case, lest he state [or start - RB] a schism. For the continuing of such in a church is indeed a hurt, seeing they are useless, and in a great part hurtful, yet so, honest ministers may have access to do good beside them. But when schisms enter, the hurt thereof is more comprehensive, and they render unuseful the ministry of both good and bad."11
Significantly and to the point, Durham lived at the very time of the Protester and Resolutioner split and was speaking of that very situation.
Finally the Brief Defence moves to a series of "testimonies." First the PRCE session testifies "that the covenants and the historical testimony defending those who were faithful to the covenants in [sic] a biblical term of communion." It is hard to tell exactly what they are testifying. If they mean that imposing the doctrines and commandments of men upon the conscience is biblical, then I must disagree. If they simply mean that no sins are required by the content of the covenants, then there is no problem. But one must remember that the Steelites invest a similar meaning in the term "historical testimony" that the Romanist does with his "inspired tradition of the fathers."
When such terms are added as necessary to commune with the church of Christ we must reject them. We do not reject them for their content; we reject them for the same reason Hezekiah was compelled to destroy the brazen serpent. The Israelites had turned that which was good and lawful in its original use to something unlawful because of its misuse. So the Steelite turns that which was good and useful and lawful for the church of Scotland to use in time of national and ecclesiastical distress to that which is nothing more than the imposition of traditions upon the conscience.
Once again we turn to Calvin, "Now it is well known what shield, what sword, and what armor [Christ] used then to drive Satan back. ‘It is written,’ he said. Since he emerges as the victor by relying on Scripture alone, the enemy overcome and subdued, surely, as though by raising a standard, he calls us to that same way and promises certain victory! But what does Pighius say against this? The heretics imitate the craftiness of their head, Satan, in that they administer their poison under a false pretence based on Scripture. The faithful must beware of an ambush; they must put on their shield and armour. Indeed by taking refuge together with Christ in Scripture. Not at all, [Pighius] says; there is no safety there. They must go back to the tradition of the church as being their only refuge. Would [Pighius] sink into such inept stupidity if he had even an ounce of sound understanding?"12
The second of the PRCE’s testimonies is that "all churches and assemblies which do not subscribe the moral substance of the covenants have departed from the biblical light attained to by the Second Reformation and are constitutionally false." Now I have little problem with this statement as it stands. However, once again the Steelites intend to change terms on us. First, they speak of the moral substance of the covenants, to which none can reasonably disagree. Whether we speak of the moral duties, the moral and perpetual obligations, or the moral substance, we refer only and always to that which is binding on the conscience because it is from God’s moral law.
While we are watching the PRCE’s right hand, the left hand quickly reaches into a pocket and pulls out the parenthetic statement, "especially is this true of churches that profess to be Presbyterian and which know of the covenants but yet have refused to own them in their constitutions." Notice how the statement moved from the moral substance of the covenants to the covenants themselves. The implicit charge then becomes "if one does not own the covenants themselves in his constitution, then he also denies the moral substance of the covenants." In fact, without explanation the PRCE session even added the word "especially." A fair treatment would require that the PRCE first define what they understand to be the moral substance of the covenants, then demonstrate how owning the covenants is the only way a church can meet the moral obligations they have defined.
Their third testimony fairly contradicts their second testimony. After testifying that those churches which know of the covenants but never include them in their own constitutions are especially (their word) culpable, they testify that churches on the continent knew of the covenants, agreed with the moral substance of the covenants, but history demonstrates that those churches never incorporated the covenants as such into their constitutions. The Steelites place a different "spin" on this, but by their own previous testimony, logic dictates that they must testify against those continental churches as they were "constitutionally false (especially is this true of churches that profess to be presbyterian and which know of the covenants, but yet have refused to own them in their constitutions)".
Testimony number four and testimony number five both deal with Samuel Rutherford’s Due Right of Presbyteries.13 The PRCE session slips effortlessly between the terms "true church" and "truly constituted church" as though they were exact synonyms for one another. We must pause for a moment, however, and remember how the Scots Confession of 1560 defined a "true church" as having three notes (see supra), none of which was the necessity of a church constitution. Yet the Steelite error has added such a requirement for its "truly constituted church," and then used the terms interchangeably as though Rutherford would unquestionably agree with them.
I have struggled through Rutherford’s Due Right three times in the past few years. The first was when I was researching The Visible Church and the Outer Darkness; the second when I was researching A Westminster Bibliography; and most recently in researching the Steelite controversy. After reading the book three times and consulting with several others who also have read Rutherford many times I truly believe the PRCE session misunderstand what he is saying. It is quite possible that virtually everyone else in the world since Rutherford’s day is wrong about him and the Steelites are correct, but such is doubtful.
Thus Rutherford states on page 132 of Due Right, "A confession of faith containing all fundamentall points, is so farre forth the Word of God, as it agreeth with the Word of God, and obligeth as a rule secundary, which wee believe with subjection to God, speaking in his owne Word, and to this plat-forme wee may lawfully sweare." Note carefully Rutherford’s use of the phrase "may lawfully swear." The Steelites, it seems to me, would have him saying "must lawfully swear" at this place. He goes on in the next page to explain how oaths and covenants are intended to bind judicially within the church.
Rutherford claims, "but it will not follow, that we may sweare a plat-form of Divine truth framed and penned by men; but the connexion notwithstanding of this remaineth sure, because Israel did sweare the Lord’s covenant, according to the true meaning and intent of the Holy Ghost, as it is God’s Word, and we also swear a National Covenant, not as it is man’s word, or because the church or doctors, at the churches [sic] direction, have set it down in such and such words, such an order or method, but because it is God’s Word, so that we swear to the sense, and meaning of the plat-form of confession, as to the words of God; now the Word of God, and sense and meaning of the Word is all one; God’s Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two different things."
Observe how Rutherford concluded. The National Covenant (Confession of Faith) is to be sworn not because the church has required it, but because it is an accurate representation of the sense of God’s law. It is not, as the Steelites claim, because the church’s testimony tells us what to believe. The church’s testimony must be judged according to the word of God, and not vice versa.
As Sherman Isbell of the Presbyterian Reformed Church has well summarized Rutherford, "The real value of the Biblical texts about the swearing of covenants is to demonstrate the propriety of a church subscribing to a confession of faith. Confessions of faith are useful for asserting a sound hermeneutic and excluding false interpretations of the Scripture, and as a means for teachers in the church to preserve unity among themselves. Subscription to a confession of faith ought also to remedy backsliding and prevent heresy. It represents a church’s steadfastness in the face of claims that there can be no certainty in matters about which men have differed." (PRC web site, Rutherford)
Rutherford did not leave us to guess if he understood the true church as the 1560 Scots Confession understood it or if he agreed with the Steelites. On page 251 of Due Right he concluded "A visible profession of the Truth and Doctrine of godlinesse, is that which essentially constitutes a visible church, and every member of the visible church; only our Brethren [the separatists — RB] and we differ much about the nature of this profession which is required in members added to the church. Our Brethren will have none members of the visible church, but such as are satisfactory to the consciences of all the visible church, and give evidences to cleare, as the judgment of discerning men can attaine unto, that they are truly regenerated. We againe do teach, that the scandalously wicked are to be cast out of the church by excommunication, and these of approved piety are undoubtedly members of the visible church, so these of the middle sort are to be acknowledged members of the church, though the church have not a positive certainty of the judgment of charity, that they are regenerated, so they be knowen 1. To be Baptized. 2. That they be free of grosse scandal. 3. And professe that they be willing hearers of the Doctrine of the Gospell. Such a profession, as giveth evidences to the positive certainty of the judgment of charity, of sound conversion, is not required to make and constitute a true visible church."
We could take much more space examining the ecclesiastical views of Samuel Rutherford. I will recommend reading him carefully (**quote from Kevin Barrow letter to PRCE session since removed from this web site, c.c.). Rutherford has the habit of first quoting the person he wishes to refute (generally John Cotton and John Robinson). He will then draw several distinctions that his opponent may have neglected. Then he follows with conclusions drawn from making the right biblical distinctions. Early this year a young man asked how the RPC would "answer" Rutherford. I loaned him a copy of Due Right and by the time he finished reading it, he realized that it is the PRCE who must "answer" Rutherford, for he completely undermines their view.
The PRCE, in their sixth testimony, state "to refuse to subscribe to the moral substance of the covenants is to have no part in the covenanted reformation of the seventeenth century." This sounds like "more of the same," but the significant addition at this point in the PRCE’s paper is that they have actually attempted to define "moral substance." Or rather they have allowed John Brown of Wamphray to define it for them. The following emphases were placed there by the PRCE session.
It is a moral duty to abjure all the points of Popery, which was done in the national covenant; and it is a moral duty to endeavour our own reformation and the reformation of the church, which was sworn to in both covenants; it is a moral duty, to endeavour the reformation of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, which was sworn to in the league and covenant; it is a moral duty to purge out all unlawful officers out of God’s house, and to endeavour the extirpation of heresy and schism, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, which was sworn to there also; it is a moral duty to do what God had commanded towards superiors, inferiors and equals, which, by the league and covenant, all were bound unto; and, therefore, the covenants are strongly obliging, being more absolute than other covenants, because they bind et vi materice et vi sanctionis, --both by reason of the matter and by reason of the oath, and so are perpetual, Jer. l.5. And, therefore, a breach of these must be a greater fault than the breach of such covenants as are about things not morally evil, which only bind vi sanctionis [by reason of oath], and so, it is beyond all doubt that the breach of these covenants is a most heinous and crying sin (John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetic Relation, p. 173, emphases added). (Brief Defense)
Significantly, John Brown demonstrates for us what is meant by the term "moral duty" by setting before us what he understood to be the moral duties which were contained in the Solemn League and Covenant and the National Covenant.
Morally Binding Obligations
In any human document it is necessary to distinguish between the moral and perpetual obligations of the document on the one hand and the accidental and historical on the other. Examples of the latter in the Solemn League and Covenant are found in article III which promises to defend the person of Charles I and to preserve the rights of the kingdom of Scotland which no longer exists. However, there are clearly moral and perpetual obligations contained in the Solemn League and Covenant as well, as John Brown pointed out. Article I of Solemn League and Covenant contains the key moral obligations of the document.
By "moral duty" we set forth the definition that a moral duty is that which is required by God in his word. We clearly separate between that which is required by God himself for his glory and our good and that which is required only by human constitutions. We thus acknowledge that there is a clear moral obligation to attend upon the assemblies of the church from Hebrews 10:25. Yet at the same time we acknowledge that the assembly itself may be at one location or another and at one time or another. The specifics of time and location are human constitutions and thus, as Calvin stated, "should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation." A failure to make this proper distinction is what one person has characterized as a "prescription for Pharisaism."
It will do the Steelites no good to appeal to the fifth commandment as though God gives the church in the fifth commandment what he has taken away in the second commandment. The issue between the Pharisees and the Lord in Matthew chapter fifteen was precisely over this faulty Steelite view of the fifth commandment.
The 1560 Scots Confession, as we have seen, specifically rejects the notion of "antiquity" or the "traditions of the elders" as a note of the true church. This is no different from the Lord, as he rebuked the Pharisees of Jerusalem in the fifteenth of Matthew. The Pharisees, it may be remembered, questioned the moral uprightness of Jesus’ disciples based upon a Steelite misunderstanding of the fifth commandment. "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders," they asked, "for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." Significantly the Pharisees did not wish to discuss the necessity of hand washing in terms of personal hygiene. They made it a requirement, i.e. a necessity, based upon their own misapplication of the fifth commandment. It was not simply a pharisaic requirement — it was the tradition of the elders — to wash one’s hands before eating bread.
Jesus’ response was not to discuss the relative merits of hand washing or the source of the tradition. No, the Lord went straight to the heart of the matter. By making human constitutions and traditions necessary, the Pharisees transgressed the commandment of God — they sinned by adding their commands to the Word of God. Christ then went on to demonstrate that by their human constitutions they had actually undermined the fifth commandment — the very commandment they claimed to use to justify their traditions of the elders. Jesus concluded, "but in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Significantly, Jesus did not say that the commandments of men have no place, but he clearly showed that their place is not at the level of necessity.
It is important therefore, if we would avoid coming under the censure of Matthew 15:9 and 7, that we carefully distinguish in our church constitutions between that which is from God and therefore morally and perpetually binding and that which is from the elders and therefore "should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation." The Steelite argument, if it can be called that, that the fifth commandment requires us to adopt certain human constitutions and not others flies in the face of Matthew 15:9 and 7.
The Moral Requirements of the Solemn League and Covenant
Are there, then, morally obligatory aspects in the Solemn League and Covenant? We answer with a resounding, "yes." Further, along with John Brown of Wamphray, we believe they can be identified and catalogued. We find most of the moral obligations of the covenant in article I. This article promises to endeavor, according to one’s place and station and calling, the preservation of the reformed religion in (1) doctrine, (2) worship, (3) discipline, and (4) government. The accidental and historical of the article is that which limits the endeavor to the three kingdoms only. Significantly, the document informs us how the signers intended to bring about the fulfillment of these moral obligations. They covenanted together to produce (1) a confession of faith, (2) a form of church government, (3) a directory for worship and catechizing.14
Because some have accused me personally and the RPC generally of not properly understanding the true moral obligations that were undertaken in the Solemn League and Covenant, I will quote somewhat at length from sundry of the Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland during the period.15
On February 3, 1645 the General Assembly adopted the Directory for the Publick Worship of God (the same directory adopted by the RPC in October 1994 and subsequently approved in January 1995 and July 1995). Here is a portion of the adopting act, "whereas an happy Unity and Uniformity in religion amongst the Kirks of Christ in these three Kingdoms, united under one Soveraigne, hath been long and earnestly wished for by the godly and well-affected amongst us, was propounded as a main article of the large Treaty, without which Band and Bulwark no safe well-grounded and lasting Peace could be expected; and afterward with greater strength and maturity, revived in the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms; whereby they stand straitly obliged to endeavor the neerest uniformity in one forme of church-government, Directory of Worship, Confession of Faith, and forme of Catechising... being also the end of our sending Commissioners, as was desired from this Kirk, with Commission to treat of Uniformity in the foure particulars afore-mentioned, with such Committees as should be appointed by both Houses of the Parliament of England, and by the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster."
Later in the act, the General Assembly said, "Finally, the Assembly doth with much joy and thankfulness acknowledge the rich blessing and invaluable mercy of God, in bringing the so much wished for uniformity in Religion, to such a happy Period, that these Kingdoms once at so great distance in the forme of Worship, are now by the blessing of GOD brought to a neere Uniformity than any other Reformed Kirks,..." Finally, the General Assembly in this act referred to the directory as God’s "pure and purged Ordinances."16
For those keeping a checklist of moral obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant, we can now point out that the second moral obligation listed was the first one fulfilled. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1645 adopted the Directory for the Publick Worship of God as partial fulfillment of the moral obligation of God’s people, and especially as found in the SL&C. On October 1, 1994 the organizational meeting of what would become the RPC adopted the following statement: "We sincerely own the simplicity and purity of worship as authorized by the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God as established and put in execution by Act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland February 3, 1645, as a most scriptural and suitable model for the conduct of divine worship; and as the only worship presently authorized and practiced in this church."17
In session 16 (February 10, 1645) of the same General Assembly the Church of Scotland adopted the Form of Church-Government and Ordination of Ministers. In the act the General Assembly once again confessed its moral obligation to have a book of discipline in accord with the Word of God and acknowledged the moral obligation as it was set forth in Solemn League and Covenant. So also, in session 2 of the meeting of the RPC on October 1, 1994 the minutes reflect: "We adopt the Presbyterian form of church government as defined by the Form of Presbyterian Church Government as approved by Act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland February 3, 1645 [sic] as the form of government instituted by Christ for the government of his church to the end of the age; and the only government of this church." The minutes go on in the same resolution, "It is not necessary to take the Covenant of the three Kingdoms. The Latin requirement of Directory for Ordination 2(5) may be waived by Presbytery. Directory for Ordination 2(8) may be lengthened or shortened at Presbytery’s discretion. Directory for Ordination 3 shall be considered to be only a guideline. We understand the phrase ‘Church of England’ in the Directory of Ordination 10 also to apply to any Reformed communion. We further understand the ‘extraordinary way’ of ordination set forth in the Directory to have application not only to England and Scotland, but to our present situation as well."18
In the church of Scotland’s act of approbation of the Confession of Faith, the General Assembly state, "A Confession of Faith for the Kirks of God in the three Kingdomes [was] the chiefest part of that Uniformity in Religion which by the Solemn League and Covenant we are bound to endeavor... and the said Confession being upon due examination thereof found by the Assembly to be most agreeable to the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received Doctrine, Worship, Discipline; and Government of this Kirk.... Agreeing for our part that it be a common Confession of Faith for the three Kingdomes."
At the October 1, 1994 meeting the RPC adopted the Confession and catechisms as follows: "We receive and adopt the whole doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as approved by acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647 and 1648 respectively." Further, by a unanimous declaration the RPC on July 22, 1995 took the following vow:
"Being obliged to keep pure the faith once delivered to the saints and to hold fast the form of sound words, we the office-bearers of Reformation Presbyterian Church fully subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, Larger and Shorter. Through this full subscription, we adopt and receive without amendment or scruple these aforesaid Westminster standards as our individual confession of faith, the very system of truth taught in holy scripture, and sole constitutional covenant of union. To these landmarks we voluntarily, yet conscionably, pledge our engagement, in doctrine and judicature, extending throughout the duration of our communion with this body.(Minutes, July 1995)
"Our full subscription to the Westminster standards is founded upon our love of, and duty to, veracity and sincerity, as we interpret them in the plain and univocal sense, striving to discern the original intent of the framers. We bind ourselves to an immediate and forthright disclosure of our particular interpretation, should it be questioned by an office-bearer, communing member, or should our adherence to this full subscription fluctuate, we will agreeably submit with utmost care, faithfulness and humility to the lawful hearing and determination of the supreme judicatory of this church." (Minutes, July 1995)
So important was this vow to the original members of the RPCp that the moderator, who normally is allowed to vote only to break a tie, was allowed to swear it. Thus the RPCp from its inception both understood and made every human effort to comply with moral duties which form the constitution of a church, viz. scriptural doctrine, worship, government and discipline.
With the adoption of the Confession of Faith, Directory for the Publick Worship of God, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism, and Form of Church-government and Directory for the Ordination of Ministers, the RPCp effectively accepted and began to fulfil the moral obligations of all four parts of Article I of the Solemn League. The reader should note that while the RPCp did not adopt the Solemn League per se, it was one after another adopting the moral obligations contained in the Solemn League.
The RPCp said implicitly with the 1648 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, "whosoever brings in any opinion or practice in this Kirk contrary to the Confession of Faith, Directory of Worship or Presbyterian Government may justly be esteemed to be opening the door to Schisme and Sects:. . . for many false Prophets are gone out into the world, if they speak not according to the word it is because there is no light in them."19 Note carefully how the 1648 General Assembly equated the term "law and testimony" with the Word of God itself, and not with the word plus uninspired history. This will come up again below when we discuss David Steele’s outlandish view of Isaiah 8:20.
The minutes of the RPC clearly reflect, especially in the adopting of the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, an attempt by the RPC to distinguish between the historical and perpetual; between the moral and accidental. The Latin requirement was seen as non-moral and therefore the Presbytery was authorized to waive it. So, too, was the length of the exam for expectants. The expectant’s time with the people who would call him was stated as a guideline and not a moral obligation. The RPCp acknowledged that there were certain portions of the Directory for Ordination that contained merely historic circumstances and not moral obligations. Yet, where those historic circumstances continued to have validity, such as the "extraordinary way" of ordination, we acknowledged that fact.
Lest some reader think I have misrepresented the position of the PRCE, let the authors speak for themselves. They claim in their Brief Defence that taking the Covenant of the Three Kingdoms "is absolutely necessary, if we are one moral person with the churches who defended the covenants with their lives.... Will we exclude from our church George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford and all the faithful covenanters of the second Reformation?"(Brief Defence)
We have already examined the words of Samuel Rutherford and found that the Steelite errorists cannot rightly claim him as one of their own. For a more detailed review of Rutherford’s Due Right, see the Presbyterian Reformed Church web page. We saw also that Durham, who lived at the very time in question wrote his classic A Treatise on Scandal precisely to bring about a union between the Protesters and Resolutioners. However, since the PRCE claims that Gillespie favors their view of elevating human constitutions to the level of absolute necessity, we will adduce a couple of places from his works on the subject.
"We must distinguish between a dependence absolute, and, in some respect. Congregations [do] absolutely depend upon the Holy Scriptures alone, as the perfect rule of faith and manners, of worship and church government. For we accurse the tyranny of prelates, who claimed to themselves an autocratic power over congregations, to whom they gave their naked will for a law. One of themselves told a whole synod, that they ought to esteem that best which seems so to superiors, and that this is a sufficient ground to the conscience for obeying, though the thing be inconvenient. (Spotswood’s Sermon at Perth Assembly). We say that congregations ought, indeed, to be subject to presbyteries and synods, yet not absolutely, but in the Lord, and in things lawful; and to this purpose the constitution of presbyteries and synods are to be examined by the judgment of Christian discretion; for a synod is judex judicandus and regula regulata, so that it ought not to be blindly obeyed, whether the ordinance be convenient or inconvenient."20
…
"First, they are imposed with a necessity of practice. Spottiswood tells us that public constitutions must be obeyed, and that private men may not disobey them, (Sermon at Perth Assembly) and thus is our practice astricted [bound] in the use of things which are not at all necessary, and acknowledged gratis by the urgers to be indifferent: astricted (I say) to one part without liberty to the other, and that by the mere authority of a human constitution; whereas Christian liberty gives us freedom both for the omission and for the observation of a thing indifferent, except some other reason do astrict and restrain it than a bare human constitution."21
…
"ANSWER 1. Who doubts of this, that liberty of practice may be restrained in the use of things which are in themselves indifferent? But, yet, if the bare authority of an ecclesiastical law, without any other reason than the will and pleasure of men, be made to restrain practice, then is Christian liberty taken away."22
…
"2. When the authority of the church’s constitution is obtruded to bind and restrain the practice of Christians in the use of things indifferent, they are bereaved of their liberty, as well as if an opinion of necessity were borne in upon their consciences. Therefore we see, when the Apostle (1 Cor. 7) gives the liberty of marriage, he does not only leave the conscience free in its judgment of the lawfulness of marriage, but also gives liberty of practice to marry or not to marry. And (Col. 2:21), when he gives instances of such human ordinances as take away Christian liberty, he says not, ‘you must think that you may not touch,’ etc., but ‘touch not,’ etc., telling us, that when the practice is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty spoiled, though the conscience be left free."23
…
"Touching the second, it is certain that human laws, as they come from men, and in respect of any force or authority which men can give them, have no power to bind the conscience. For the business of our consciences is not with men, but with the one God, says Calvin. [Instit. lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 5.] Over our souls and consciences, no one except God has any right, says Tilen. [Synt., part. 2, disp. 32, thes. 4.] From Jerome’s distinction, that a king is in charge of the unwilling, but a bishop the willing, Marcus Antonius de Dominis well concludes: to be in charge of the willing as a flock removes all legal authority and power to command and force, and signifies only power to guide where, viz., the subject is at liberty to comply and not to comply, such that the one who is in charge has nothing by which to compel to compliance one who does not want to comply. [De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 2, n. 12.] This point he proves in that chapter at length, where he disputes both against temporal and spiritual coactive jurisdiction in the church."24
…
"An ecclesiastical law, says Junius, is an arrangement or laying-down, not truly a law, but a model or canon [rule], and indeed even directs as a canon, one already voluntarily acting: moreover it does not force by necessity, as a law does the unwilling; though if perhaps compulsion occurs first, that is not of the nature of a canon, but comes from somewhere else. [Animad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, nota 87.]"25
…
"Always, since men give us no leave to try their decrees and constitutions, that we may hold fast no more than is good, God be thanked that we have a warrant to do it (without their leave) from his own word (1 Thess. 5:21). Non numeranda suffragis, sed appendenda [Opinions must not be counted up, but considered], says Augustine in Psal. 39. Our divines hold [Chem., Exam., part 1, de Bon. Oper., p. 80.] that all things which are proposed by the ministers of the church, yes, by ecumenical councils, [Synt. Pur. Theol., disp. 49, thes. 72.] should be proved and examined; and that when the guides of the church do institute any ceremonies as necessary for edification, yet the church has the free power of judgment to give assent to or reject them. [Magd., cen. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, co. 443.] Nay, the canon law, [Decr., part 1, dist. 12, cap. 1.19. Aquin., 2, 2ae. 4, 147, art. 4.] prohibiting to depart or swerve from the rules and discipline of the Roman church, yet excepts discretionem justitiae [the ability to discern righteousness], and so permits to do otherwise than the church prescribes, if it can be done cum discretione justitiae [with the ability to discern righteousness]. The schoolmen also give liberty to a private man, of proving the statutes of the church, and neglecting the same, if he see cause for doing so, if a reason becomes evident, a man can, on his own, rightfully pass by the observance of a statute. [Aquin., 2,2 ae. 4, 147, art. 4.] If any be not able to examine and try all such things, everyone ought to be able, by the command of God: therefore they remove their blame, says Paraeus. [Comm. in 1 Cor. 10:15.] If we rightly feel we are deprived of the faculty of questioning, it must be indicated by that same spirit who speaks through his prophets, says Calvin. [Comm. in 1 Thess. 5:21.] We will not then call any man rabbi nor jurare in verba magistri [to echo the sentiments of a teacher], nor yet be Pythagorean [A philosophy which interprets reality in terms of numbers. By this description Gillespie is referring to churchmen who judge things based by the numbers of authorities cited, like the Scribes and Pharisees.] disciples to the church herself, but we will believe her and obey her in so far only as she is the pillar and ground of truth."26
Further in his Assertion, Gillespie declared, "The dogmatic power of a synod is not a power to make new articles of faith, nor new duties and parts of divine worship, but a power to apply and interpret those articles of faith and duties of worship which God hath set before us in his written word, and to declare the same to be inconsistent with emergent heresies and errors."27
"Now, for avoiding disorder and disconformity in a nation professing one religion, it is fit that national synods give certain directions and rules even concerning these rites and circumstances, not having therein an arbitrary or autocratic power, but being always tied to follow the rules aforesaid."28
We further have papers from the Westminster Assembly which give us the same idea. The purpose of the Solemn League and Covenant was not for the purpose of becoming the basis for a church constitution. The Assembly understood the moral obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant. There the Assembly Grand Committee answered the Independent argument for "attainments" from Philippians 3:15-16 in this way:
"We heartily embrace the rule which our Brethren give us out of the Apostle, Philippians 3:15-16, and desire to walk by it; but did the Apostle ever intend out of that place to allow Brethren who agree in all substantials of Faith and Worship to separate from one another, and to deny fellowship and communion with one another even in those very substantials wherein they agree? Is this to walk by the same rule, and to mind the same things, to separate from churches in those very things wherein we agree with them? or shall every circumstantial difference be a sufficient ground to withdraw communion totally and to all purposes? When there were differences of judgment amongst the Corinthians and Romans, did not the Apostle write to them as one church, as one body?"29
The Committee continued, "For Brethren upon smaller differences not to content themselves with such expedients as may be provided to reconcile those differences, but to separate from communion with true churches of Christ, we cannot but believe it to be contrary to the Word of God and to the Scope and Letter of the covenant; and we would willingly understand from our Brethren what disjunction or deformity is contrary to the covenant, if this be not, to have divided practice and separated communion even in those things wherein men have united judgments, or when the peace of the church is likely to be preserved, if men will not keep communion with one another no not in those things wherein they do doctrinally agree; for Brethren do all along insist upon a wrong ground, namely difference of judgment, when in our proposition the uniformity mentioned is evidently restricted unto unity of judgment."30
The only moral and perpetual obligation in the Solemn League and Covenant which the Steelite might urge upon us which has not already been discussed is found in article II: "That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness." So, has the RPC accepted the moral obligation of opposing Popery, Prelacy, etc.?
Of course, the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, as adopted by the RPC opposes all forms of government except biblical church government. Additionally, however, the Confession specifically opposes Popish monastic vows (22-7), the Pope’s jurisdiction over magistrates (23-4), refers to Papists as idolaters (24-3), refers to the mass as "abominably injurious" (29-2) and to the doctrine of transubstantiation as repugnant to Scripture, common sense, and reason (29-6). It further intimates that Popish churches are synagogues of Satan (25-5) and correctly identifies the Pope as the Antichrist (25-6). Though Larger Catechism 191 is an indirect reference, it is clear from the overall context of the Westminster Standards that we are there being instructed that it is morally required that we pray for the downfall of Romanism.
Superstition is opposed in Westminster Confession of Faith 21-1, prayers for the dead are opposed in 21-4, enforced celibacy for any who can give lawful consent is opposed in 24-3, the five bastard sacraments are condemned by implication in 27-4, baptismal regeneration is opposed in 28-6, Popish and Prelatical practices in denying the cup to the people and adoring the elements of the Supper are condemned in 29-4, doctrine of purgatory is refuted in 32-1, making human constitutions "necessary" and the requiring of implicit faith are both overthrown in 20-2, the Papist canon is exposed as false in 1-2, etc.
The RPC thus has maintained and continues to maintain that the Westminster documents which we have adopted were (see Westminster Bibliography - Bacon) transacted upon the basis of the moral obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant. The moral and perpetual obligations of the SL&C are met and fulfilled insofar as a church commits itself to those just requirements of God’s word. The human constitutions by which those commitments are met may vary from 1643 Scotland to 1997 North America.
David Steele
Much of the error of the PRCE is rooted in the opinion of the nineteenth century covenanter David Steele. Steele was fond of quoting Augustine who said he would not have believed the Scriptures, had not the authority of the Church moved him. Of course, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches, "The authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God."31
Calvin also resisted this error, which has its best home in Rome. "On the determination of the church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted to the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled Tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from them simply this one acknowledgment, viz. that there is nothing in the church that they cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than men’s judgment? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected — into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the good will of men?"32
Steele also claimed that public social covenanting is "required in the first commandment." If Steele intended to remind us that we take Christ’s covenant upon us in baptism then we would agree. However, he quickly moves from that idea, which would be a correct understanding and in accord with Larger Catechism 104, to the idea that human constitutions and historic testimonies are required in the first commandment, which Larger Catechism 104 nowhere even hints.
Based upon the history of the Reformed Presbytery, David Steele concluded that it is necessary to the true and proper constitution of a church that it swear the 1638 National Covenant of Scotland, the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, and the 1712 Auchensaugh Renovation. Further, acceptance of "the Judicial Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain 1761 with supplements" is required in order to come to the Lord’s Supper. 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.
The PRCE 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 20-2 it states, "the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also." Calvin agreed. "Human traditions, [Paul] says, deceive by an appearance of wisdom. Whence this show? Just that being framed by men, the human mind recognized in them that which is its own, and embraces it when recognized more willingly than anything, however good, which is less suitable to its vanity."33
It requires a quick eye to know which of the stage illusionist’s hands to watch, and it requires a logical mind to pierce through the fallacies of Steelite propaganda. Rather than submit carefully reasoned arguments, the PRCE, following the lead of their Steelite forebears, depend upon intimidation and name calling. They appeal to the Scottish martyrs, using argumentum ad verecundiam and circumstantial ad hominen in a combination one-two appeal, first to a feeling of respect that we have for martyrs, and then to the special circumstance of our desiring to oppose the same errors the martyrs opposed. The paper written by the PRCE session is riddled with such fallacies. I would encourage the careful reader simply to read their Brief Defence with a logic book open at the same time.
IV. Concluding Remarks: Terms of Communion and Supposed Attainments.
The PRCE, whether ingenuously or whether by intimidation we cannot tell, adopted the six Steelite "terms of communion" when it was merely a few weeks until they could have brought their case of conscience before the presbytery of the RPC. By the same token, if they believed their position to be true regardless of the state of their conscience, they could have brought an overture to the RPCp. They promised to "submit with utmost care, faithfulness, and humility to the lawful hearing and determination of the supreme judicatory of [the] church." The Confession clearly and biblically teaches "It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience, etc." Nevertheless, the PRCE session decided unilaterally first to withdraw from the RPCp themselves and subsequently to influence others by whatever means or motive to do the same.
PRCE session has made an art form of saying yea and nay at the same time. In February of 1996 I expressed concern that Jim Dodson, a man who is a member of no church at all and has no ministerial credentials from any church anywhere, had the session’s ear more so than did their own presbytery. The pastor of PRCE assured me that it was not the case because he was not even talking to Dodson. But then he went on in the same correspondence to maintain that the session was reading the material Dodson sent them via a private member of PRCE. So also, in their Brief Defence we are assured that they cannot conscientiously keep their former vows because the vow maker has decided unilaterally that the vow was "unlawful" because made to an unconstitutional court. Never mind that the Confession teaches that an oath is not to be violated "although made to hereticks or infidels."
Now PRCE has adopted the Steelite six terms of communion — but do not worry. We are assured in Brief Defence that if need be they will break that vow as well. The document states "Let the RPC prove that it is a constitutionally true church while refusing to own the covenants as a term of communion, and we will repent of what would then be a sinful separation and immediately unite with it." In other words, the PRCE is putting us on notice that there may be some future development which could cause it to decide to break its present vows as well. While I cannot speak for the Presbytery of the RPC, I personally would be quite concerned about re-uniting with a session that announces the conditions under which it is willing to break lawful oaths and vows.
An examination of the six terms of communion may help the reader to understand why this author could never agree to them. First, I have little argument whatsoever with the first three of the "Terms of Ministerial and Christian communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church." They are as follows:
"1. An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.
2. That the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable unto, and founded upon, the Scriptures.
3. That the Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the church of Scotland in the Second Reformation."
The reader who has made it this far may notice that there is no substantial difference between the terms of communion listed above and the various adoptions which took place at the organizational meeting of the RPC in October 1994. Notice that these three terms have referenced six other documents: Scripture, the Confession, the Larger Catechism, the Shorter Catechism, the Form of Presbyterial Church-government, and the Directory for the Public Worship of God. Remember that the adoption of these documents by the RPCp acknowledged that the Directory and the Form of government contained some historical elements (public prayer for the queen of Bohemia for instance) which no longer apply to us. However, we acknowledge some of the historical aspects as having continuing relevance and so placed that in our adoption as well.
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. At no point in the six terms of communion is the communicant asked or required to profess his own sinfulness, nor is he asked or required to profess faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, the only point at which the Savior is even mentioned in the six terms of communion is to ask if the communicant approves of the Scottish martyrs of Jesus.
Similarly in the region of Caesarea Philippi, Christ asked two questions of his disciples: 1. Who do men say I am? and 2. Who do you say I am? (cf. Matthew 16:13, 15). See how Jesus elicited Peter’s confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). Whether it was Peter’s confession, or Peter as a confessor, or Christ himself to whom Christ referred, we must note his words in verse 18: "And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
The Romish error is that each Roman bishop to the end of time is the ecclesiastical successor to Peter and the church is therefore built upon the confessions which the surrogate Peter continues to make. The Steelite error is similar. They build their idea of the "constitutionally true" church upon the continuing judicial testimony of the Reformed Presbytery (against which the gates of hell apparently did prevail given its absence from the face of the earth). Even the Steelites themselves admit that the Reformed Presbytery is "presently disorganized."34 The Papists claim an unbroken succession of bishops for their "Landmarkism." The Steelites have a similar view of themselves.
"By the same means [uninspired history alone] alone can we certainly trace their footsteps down to our time. These two consequences will necessarily follow: First, That all who reject any former scriptural attainments, ascertained by history alone, from their terms of communion, do thereby forfeit any just claim to the covenanted inheritance. Second, That they, and they only, who ‘bind up’ all covenanted attainments — to be ascertained only by history and argument, as conditions of fellowship — are the true and only legitimate heirs."35
Rather than following David Steele, who makes Isaiah’s "law and testimony" refer to the Scriptures plus uninspired history, we instead lean toward the understanding of John Calvin. In his Antidote to the Articles of the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, Calvin correctly maintained, "Now, therefore, that the world is in a tumult from contending opinions, this is the only remedy that we must use. We must, I say, flee to Scripture, or, as Isaiah calls it (Is. 8:20) ‘to the law and to the testimony,’ as a sacred anchor, that, in accordance with the Apostle’s precept, ‘we may be like minded one toward another,’ but still, ‘according to Christ Jesus’ (Romans. xv.5)."36
Calvin continued in his Commentary on Isaiah,37 "Hence we learn that everything which is added to the word must be condemned and rejected. It is the will of the Lord that we shall depend wholly on his word, and that our knowledge shall be confined within its limits; and therefore, if we lend our ears to others, we take a liberty which he has forbidden, and offer him a gross insult. Everything that is introduced by men on their own authority will be nothing else than a corruption of the word; and consequently, if we wish to obey God, we must reject all other instructors."
Note also what a far cry Steele’s position regarding the necessity of uninspired history as part of the terms of communion is from the simple profession of faith of the Ethiopian eunuch and of Peter. Further, and perhaps more importantly, note again that the simple profession of faith in Christ is conspicuously missing from the Steelite terms of communion.
Terms of Communion numbers four and five basically set out the historical documents in which the "covenanted attainments" can be found. There listed we find the National Covenant, the Solemn League and Covenant, the Auchensaugh Renovation, and the Judicial Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain 1761 with supplements. At this point we might do well to examine the Judicial Testimony (otherwise known among the Steelites as the Act, Declaration and Testimony), but that would take us well beyond the scope of an introduction to the controversy. 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, etc.
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. However, it should be pointed out that Steelites do not actually require a non-communicant to read or know the content of this material. They assure us that we must simply agree to it and they will explain to us later what it says. This is no difference in principle from the Papist who explains to the Protestant, "Just come home to mother church and accept her historic footprints based on history and argument as conditions of fellowship. We will explain all that this entails as we think you have a need to know." Protestants rejected that principle at the Reformation and genuine Protestants continue to reject it.
We continue to say with Calvin, "But if, without any regard to circumstances, you would simply know the character belonging at all times to those human traditions which ought to be repudiated by the Church, and condemned by all the godly, the definition which we formerly gave is clear and certain, viz. That they include all the laws enacted by men without authority from the word of God, for the purpose either of prescribing the mode of worship, or laying a religious obligation on the conscience...."38
Calvin continued, "If to one or both of these [either worship or liberty of conscience — RB] are added the other evils of obscuring the clearness of the Gospel by their multitude, of giving no edification, of being useless and frivolous occupations rather than true exercises of piety, of being set up for sordid ends and filthy lucre, of being difficult of observance, and contaminated by pernicious superstition, we shall have the means of detecting the quality of mischief which they occasion."39
We praise God for his grace that the Apostles did not multiply burdens and lay them on the backs of God’s people as did the Pharisees and Rome and now these newest children of the Pharisees, the Steelites. We thank him that the Lord proclaimed, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8). We thank God that we have no Pharisees or Romanists over us who "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matthew 23:4).
Paul, speaking of the Judaizers and recalcitrant Jews of his day proclaimed, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for those that judgest doest the same things.... Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, doest thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, does thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written" (Romans 2:1, 21-24).
Inconsistency in applying the measure of attainments
We ask, following Paul’s lead, "Ye who inveigh against idols, have you made idols of your human constitutions? Ye who speak so clearly in public against birth control, do you practice it yourselves? Ye who want others to adopt the Judicial Testimony as a term of communion, do you keep it yourselves?"
The Acts of the General Assemblies 1638-1649, a part of the "covenanted attainments" required an afternoon worship service on the Lord’s Day (pp. 50-51), themselves referencing a previous act of the General Assembly of 1580, "for keeping both dyets" be put into execution. Yet the PRCE neglects the two services which are a "covenanted attainment." Further, the same Acts on page 306 considers that preaching only once on the Lord’s Day is idleness in a Minister. Finally, the Assembly of 1648 recommended as a particular ecclesiastical remedy against ignorance, that ministers should "preach every Lord’s Day both before and after noon, according to former Acts of General Assemblies. Let Presbyteries and Synods be very careful of this; And let every Provincial Book contain an exact accompt [accounting] thereof."
The reason we take so much space on this particular subject is that the PRCE session, which dissociated from us because they believed the Judicial Testimony is necessary to the constitution of a church, also wrote a lengthy paper claiming that it is not necessary for a church to meet twice on the Lord’s Day. "Ye who press judicial testimonies upon others, do ye keep them yourselves?"
The 1642 General Assembly on August 6, Session 13 passed an "act against slandering Ministers." Given that there is a private member of the PRCE who routinely calls ministers apostates and other slanderous names, we wonder when PRCE session will begin to take seriously the judicial testimony "to proceed diligently in process against all persons, that shall reproach or scandal Ministers, with the censures of Kirk, even to the highest, according as they shall find the degree or quality of the scandal deserve."
The General Assembly of 1645 required "that the Minister and People repair to the Kirk, half an hour before that time at which ordinarily the Minister now entereth to the publick Worship; and that, that Exercise of reading and expounding, together with the ordinary Exercise of Preaching, be perfected and ended at the time which formerly closed the Exercise of Publick Worship." The question I have for the PRCE session is whether they do have an half of hour of reading and expounding in addition to the regular preaching of sermon. If not, why not?
Someone might at this point accuse me of simply being picayune. Precisely! But if PRCE does not keep all the "covenanted attainments" mentioned in the Judicial Testimonies which her session claims are legitimate and true terms of communion and the only possible true constitution of a church, then the PRCE has no greater claim upon being a truly constituted church by its own measure than other churches which do not keep the "covenanted attainments."
Let us be clear. We are not conceding the PRCE’s position. We are simply pointing out that by the PRCE’s own standard of a truly constituted church, it is not one. "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Romans 2:1).
Of course it is possible at this point for the PRCE to protest, "but wait — those are all matters of historical interest only. We still meet on the Lord’s Day, though it be only once. We do not think the Act regarding slander against Ministers has application in a society where there is no established church. We do spend time reading and expounding the word of God whether it be more or less than half an hour." We will gladly give the PRCE this point as soon as they are willing to apply it to others beside themselves! If they are not bound to the historical and accidental of the Judicial Testimony, then neither is the RPC bound to the historical and accidental of any other human constitutions.
But this brings us to the sixth term of communion, "Practically [i.e. in practice] adorning the doctrine of God our Savior, by walking in all his commandments and ordinances blamelessly." We should carefully examine this term of communion. It is not promised, "as God gives me grace," or "I shall endeavor." Rather the promise is simply to do it. Additionally, we must remember that this promise is coming from one who has not been required anywhere in the terms of communion to confess his own sinfulness, his own inability, his own profession of faith in Christ, or his own dependence upon the mercy of God and his Spirit. Yet we believe Larger Catechism 149, where we read, "No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but does daily break them in thought, word, and deed."
If it be objected that this is not a promise to sinful perfection, I must reply that it would be a simple thing to add "in the Lord." Why did the covenanted attainment never attain to so simple a thing as that? But if it is the case that the entire Steelite error can be reduced to the same legalism and self righteousness found in the Pharisees, then the sixth term of communion takes on sinister proportions. What shall we say of Zacharias and Elisabeth, parents of John Baptist? See what God the Holy Spirit says of them: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinance of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6). The language is nearly identical.
Shall we suppose that Zacharias and Elisabeth were merely trying to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly? Should we understand Luke’s language to mean that they were walking in God’s commandments almost blamelessly? No, we understand the simple language of Scripture here to mean that God took specific notice of the behavior of Zacharias and Elisabeth. We further believe that it means when we compare the behavior of Zacharias and Elisabeth to the commandments and ordinances of God that there was no discrepancy between them.
When it comes to the commandments and ordinances of God, there is one thing about which I can assure my reader: the PRCE as well as every other mere human sins daily in thought, word, and deed (Westminster Shorter Catechism #82; Larger Catechism #149; James 3:2-13). How could anyone who believes the Reformed Faith possibly submit to the sixth term of communion as it stands? Only one who prays like the Pharisee of Luke 18:11-12 could say such a thing. "I thank thee O God that I am not as other men: hymn-singers, uncovenanted, and keepers of holy days, or even as this Reformation Presbyterian Church presbytery. I publish old books twice in the week and intimidate all I meet."
Need for a Steelite Pope
The final difficulty with the whole doctrine of "covenanted attainments" is knowing what those attainments are. A church that is going to rely upon judicial testimonies, traditions, and human constitutions to lead them into truth must have someone who can tell them which attainments are necessary and which ones are not (i.e. are not true attainments). With Roman traditions this is not so problematic. They have a single Pope in Rome who, like Peter before him (or so their attainments say), simply tells the "faithful" which are the true traditions and which the false.
The Steelites are at a significant disadvantage here in that they do not have a Pope. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have too many popes. Thus they cannot decide whether women wearing a head covering at all times is an attainment or not. One pope says yes, another no. They cannot decide if women wearing only dresses (never slacks or jeans) is a covenanted attainment or not. It depends upon which pope you ask. Are wives allowed to work outside the home? Pick whatever answer you want and then find the pope who claims that answer is the "covenanted attainment." Shall we follow the covenanted attainment of Rome or of Avignon? Take your pick. For those who think this reply too sarcastic, I simply invite you to come to some other conclusion if you can. The doctrine of uninspired history binding the conscience is hideous whether it comes from the banks of the Tiber or the Tweed.
In a four page tract published by SWRB,40 which PRCE session supposedly oversees, the following statement is made: "We answer, that such evils entering into a church, do, by no means, warrant us instantly to forsake it, and form ourselves into a new church-state. It is our duty, first, to labour as the Lord gives us ability and opportunity, for a reformation of abuses; and in this we ought to be patient, as well as earnest." I do not endorse all the arguments, assumptions, and conclusions in the tract, but I would ask PRCE session some questions:
As you have dissociated from one church after another, have you ever demonstrated the patience your own tract calls for? Have you ever pursued proper and biblical church government by bringing gentle entreaty to those in superior position to you? Have you ever overtured any court which was over you in the Lord and attempted to make your case before the court before leaving? Have you ever responded to the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the Americas, or the RPC in a manner other than "taking your ball and going home?" In other words, have you ever taken stock of the poor way you treat those with whom you disagree? Have you gone back to the RPC correspondence and looked seriously at the kind way we treated you until forced by Romans 16:17 to begin avoiding you when you went out of your way to divide the RPC. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
We attempted for a long time to bear with your weaknesses — even after you refused to acknowledge them as weaknesses. We tried to give the best construction we possibly could to your error, which error sorely grieved us. We gladly bore with you patiently even though it was reported to us that you thought yourselves "at war" with us. All this we did because we would rather win you to the truth than to intimidate you into error. We said with Paul, "our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels" (2 Corinthians 6:12). We recognized with Paul that "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face" (2 Corinthians 11:19-20).
We do not regard ourselves your enemies, though we would become so for the liberty of Christ. But neither will we attempt to "heal the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11). The error into which you have fallen is serious and until you come out of the little group which claims that they alone of all the inhabitants of the earth have a true constitutional church, you will continue attached to the dead body of human tradition.
Richard Bacon, V.D.M.
August 5, 1997
Further Web Reading
Calvin Against the Steelites
An Open Letter to Reformed Pastors, Elders, and all Brethren in Christ, by Brian Schwertly
Letter From Todd Ruddell to the Edmonton PRC session regarding the perpetural nature of covenants.
A Review of Andrew Clarkson, Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church of Scotland by Richard Bacon.
Thomas Boston's Sermon against Schism. (at Naphtali Press Web site)
Samuel Rutherfurd, Separation From Corrupt Churches (at Naphtali Press Web site)
James Wood, Separation From Corrupt Churches (at Naphtali Press Web site)
Footnotes
1. John Calvin, "Reply to Cardinal Sadolet," in Calvin’s Selected Works, vol. 1, p. 28. Back
2. David Steele was a Covenanter in the middle of the nineteenth century whose teachings these men follow. The term "Steelite" does not refer to a denomination but to a peculiar understanding of the human constitution of the church. Back
3. Cap XVIII, Appendix VI, John Knox’s History Of The Reformation In Scotland, ed. William Croft Dickinson, Vol. II, pp. 267-68. Back
4. Westminster Confession of Faith XXII.3, 6 Back
5. John Calvin, Inst. IV. X .30 Back
6. The PRCE Overture begins: "We, the session of Puritan Reformed Church in Edmonton, do respectfully overture the presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church this sixth day of March, 1996 to sincerely adopt, as a term of communion for membership within this church, the National Covenant (or Confession of Faith) and the Solemn League and Covenant, in the matter or moral substance thereof, as having their foundation upon and being agreeable unto the Word of God." Back
7. James King Hewison, The Covenanters: A History Of The Church In Scotland From The Reformation To The Revolution (Glasgow: John Smith & Son, 1913), 2 volumes. Back
8. Rev. John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887), p. 319. See correction to this mistake. Johnston says: "He was one of the few ministers who refused to take the Covenant in 1638." Back
9. A true copy of the whole printed acts of the Generall Assemblies of the Church of Scotland microform: beginning at the assembly holden at Glasgow the 27. day of November 1638, and ending at the assembly, holden at Edinburgh the 6. day of August. 1649: diligently compared, and exactly reprinted conforme to the foresaid printed acts / by a welwisher of the Church of Scotland, who (if he find encouragement by which is now done) intends to publish the rest of the acts not heretofore