Posts Tagged ‘Westminster Standards’

Daniel Cawdrey on the need for Protestants to be strict

July 16, 2013

The Westminster divine, Daniel Cawdrey, pointed out the great evil of Protestants being less strict and zealous in religious matters than idolaters:

“Oh shameful and unsufferable wickedness! It is not so with any Religion as it is with ours. In any Religion of Jews, Turks, Papists, the more strict and exact, the more Honoured and esteemed: Only in the Protestant Religion, the stricter and preciser, the more scorned and despised. It was a very noble act, that of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 3. 29. I make a decree, that every people, nation and language which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill, &c. I could wish, that our Law-makers, would provide a Statute, that it might be lawful for no man, with impunity, to deride and scorn Religion, or the strict profession of it.”

Daniel Cawdrey, The good man a public good. A sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons, at the late solemn fast: January 31, 1643 (London, 1643), p. 14.

http://books.google.com/books?id=e9dLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Advertisements

The National Covenant of Scotland, 1581

July 16, 2013

Daniel Cawdrey on the Jesuits, a brood of vipers

July 15, 2013

The Westminster divine, Daniel Cawdrey, reminds us of what early Protestant and Reformed theologians thought of the Jesuits:

[…] Papists, home-born Papists, who are vipers that most unnaturally have endeavoured to eat through their mother’s bowels.  Not their nature only, but their Religion also, teaches and allows them for the Good of the Catholic cause, falsely so called, not to spare their own native Country, their own kindred, Brothers, Fathers, no not of their own Religion.  To blow up Parliaments, to ruin Cities, Countries, Kingdoms, is their ordinary work.  Especially of those, whom they call Jesuits, the Bellows of Hell, the Incendiaries of Christendom, at this day.  The Curse of God is upon them fearfully for arrogating their Name from Jesus, which signifies a Saviour, and is impropriated to the Son of God: Thou shalt call his name Jesus.  These men, that call themselves Jesuits, are, by the just judgement of God upon them, Destroyers of Cities, Countries, Kingdoms, and might far better take their name from him, who is called in Hebrew Abaddon, and in Greek Apollon, but signifying a Destroyer.  Revel. 9. 11.

Daniel Cawdrey, The good man a public good.  A sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons, at the late solemn fast: January 31, 1643 (London, 1643), pp 28-9.

http://archive.org/details/goodmanapublick00cawdgoog

Robert Baillie on abhorring toleration

July 15, 2013

Robert Baillie reminds us that absolute religious toleration is an evil which is to be abhorred.  Moreover, the extract is also interesting for his acknowledgment that the more orthodox Independents (such as Jeremiah Burroughs) did not advocate the tolerationist opinions of Rodger Williams and others:

Liberty of Conscience, and Toleration of all or any Religion is so prodigious an impiety, that this religious Parliament cannot but abhor the very naming of it.  Whatever may be the opinion of Jo[hn] Godwin, of Mr [Rodger] Williams and some of their stamp, yet Mr [Jeremiah] Burrowes in his late Irenicon [sic] upon many unanswerable arguments explodes that abomination.  Likewise our Brethren who seek to be accommodate, will be willing I hope to profess their going along with us, without any considerable dissent, as in the Directory for all the parts of divine worship, so in the confession of Faith and Catechism.

Robert Baillie, A dissuasive from the errors of the time (London, 1645), epistle dedicatory.

http://archive.org/details/dissuasivefromer00bail

Daniel Featley, The dippers dipt. Or, the Anabaptists duck’d and plung’d over head and ears, at a disputation in Southwark

July 15, 2013

If the people of God meet in a private place, is not that then the house of God?

There is a public house of God, that is, a place frequented from common life, and dedicated to God’s service, there is a private house of God, as we read, Rom. 16:5. Where some of the faithful privately meet, and that is also called the Church; Greet the Church in thine house: and in such private it is lawful to preach in time of persecution, but not now, when we have public Churches for the service of God, to which we may and ought to repaire, and in these Churches no lay-man ought to preach, nor at all execuite the pastoral function, either there or any where else.

– Daniel Featley, The dippers dipt. Or, the Anabaptists duck’d and plung’d over head and ears, at a disputation in Southwark (5th edn, London, 1647), p. 15.

http://archive.org/details/cu31924105429330

Singing of Psalmes the duty of Christians under the New Testament : or, A vindication of that Gospel-ordinance in V. sermons upon Ephesians 5.19 .. (1653)

July 14, 2013

“There can be no composures of men that will suit the occasions, necessities, afflictions, or affections of God’s people, as the psalms of David, concerning which we may say what the Jews said of manna, they have a taste and relish according to everyone’s palate. Let it once be granted that we must sing psalms, I’ll warrant you David’s psalms shall carry it; there being no art or spirit of man now that can come near that of David. What though they were penned upon occasion, and according to the necessities of God’s people then? So were the other scriptures, and yet they concern us as much now as they did the people of God then. Besides, we read that in Hezekiah’s time the Levites were to praise God with the words of David, 2 Chron. 29:30, which shews that the psalms were for the use of God’s people in after ages upon all occasions. And I would fain know what occasions God’s people now, or at any time, either have, or can have, which David’s psalms may not suit with as well, and better than any songs composed by an ordinary gift. What glorious things are spoken of Christ, his kingdom, and the great work of redemption by him? Who can admire and adore the infinite excellencies of God in better phrases and forms then the Spirit hath declared to us in David’s psalms? If we would cheer our spirits, or compose them for hearing or other duties, what more heavenly meditations? If we would commend and magnify the power, wisdom, and goodness of God in any mercy, how can we do it better than in the words of David? It would become these that quarrel at our singing of David’s psalms, to give us better in the room of them, or else to consider how they fulfil the law of Christ, when they sing neither those, nor any other.”

 

– Thomas Ford, Singing of Psalms the duty of Christians under the New Testament : or, A vindication of that Gospel-ordinance in sermons upon Ephesians 5.19

 

http://archive.org/details/singes00ford

 

Stephen Marshall on the covenanted union of the Westminster Assembly

July 14, 2013

Preaching before the Houses of Parliament, the Westminster divine Stephen Marshall held up the Westminster Assembly as an example of covenanted union among all the nations of the earth:

Here [London] you may likewise see a Reverend Assembly of grave and learned Divines, who daily wait upon the Angel in the Mount, to receive from him the lively Oracles, and the pattern of God’s house, to present unto you.   All these are of our own Nation; and with them you may see the Honourable, reverend, and learned Commissioners of the Church of Scotland; and in them behold the wisdom and affection of their whole Church and Nation, willing to live and die with us.  All these you may behold in one view; and which is more, you may behold them all of one heart, and one mind, after so many plots and conspiracies to divide them one from another, and thereby to ruin them all: And which is yet more, you may see them all met together this day on purpose, both to praise God for this union, and to rejoice in it, and to hold it out to all the world, and thereby to testify, that as one man they will live and die together in this common cause of God, of our Lord Jesus Christ, his Church, and these three kingdoms.  O beloved! how beautiful is the face of this Assembly?

Stephen Marshall, A sacred panegyrick, or a sermon of thanksgiving, preaching to the two Houses of Parliament (Popes-head-alley, 1644), pp 2-3.

Brian Schwertley on the necessity of Biblical Law

January 22, 2013
Brian Schwertley

Brian Schwertley

In order to emphasize the necessity of biblical law for all areas of life (the family, business, the church and the state) one must recognize the fact that all law is inescapably religious. Once Christians understand this fact, they will no longer accept humanistic law presented under the guise of neutrality, freedom and fairness. Many American Christians have bought into two popular (yet thoroughly unscriptural) concepts of law. One says that a person should not legislate morality. The other states that a nation must remain neutral with respect to religion when making civil laws. The thinking behind such slogans is that since America is a large nation composed of hundreds of religions, the path toward “liberty for all” involves keeping all religious beliefs out of civil affairs. The state must be totally “secular” in its foundation and outlook.

There are a number of things to note regarding these unbiblical conceptions of law. First, the idea that a civil law can exist that is not based on morality and religion of some type is a myth. Rushdoony writes: “The statement, ‘You can’t legislate morality,’ is a dangerous half-truth and even a lie, because all legislation is concerned with morality. Every law on the statute books of every civil government is either an example of enacted morality or it is procedural thereto. Our laws are all moral laws, representing a system of morality. Laws against manslaughter and murder are moral laws; they echo the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Laws against theft are commandments against stealing. Slander and libel laws, perjury laws, enact the moral requirement, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ Traffic laws are moral laws also: their purpose is to protect life and property; again, they reflect the Ten Commandments. Laws concerning police and court procedures have a moral purpose also, to further justice and to protect law and order. Every law on the statute books is concerned with morality or with the procedures for the enforcement of law, and all law is concerned with morality. We may disagree with the morality of a law, but we cannot deny the moral concern of law. Law is concerned with right and wrong; it punishes and restrains evil and protects the good, and this is exactly what morality is about. It is impossible to have law without having morality behind that law, because all law is simply enacted morality.” (6) This point does not mean that man can be saved through law or that laws can change people internally making them moral. It simply makes clear what should be obvious to all, that all laws are a reflection of what people consider right or wrong (ethics) and what people consider to be right or wrong is based on a particular world and life view (religion). (A person’s world-view is equivalent to his or her religion because it deals with an ultimate view of reality or an interpretation of the meaning of life).

Second, these unbiblical conceptions of law are rooted in the myth of neutrality. Does the Bible teach that man can somehow transcend himself, his environment and his own presuppositions regarding reality to autonomously discover truth and ethics in the universe? No. Man is a sinful creature who is dependent on God at every single point. While it is true that man is created in the image of God, lives in a God-created and conditional environment, is exposed to natural revelation at every moment and has a knowledge of God (Rom. 1:19ff.) and His law (Rom. 2:14-15), the Bible teaches that this knowledge is continually suppressed in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). Natural revelation is enough to condemn man. However, it cannot be used in an autonomous manner to develop a consistent and thorough biblical system of justice. It was never intended by God to be used apart from special revelation. The Bible unequivocally condemns the idea of neutrality in favor of a total allegiance to Jesus Christ and His law word. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Pr. 1:7). Believers are told to bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). If Jesus is to direct every thought, why and how can this exclude laws directed to families and society? The only way that nations can have real justice is to “kiss the Son” (Ps. 2:12) and become disciples of all that He has commanded (Mt. 28:20). Unbelievers who walk in the futility of their mind, who have a darkened understanding (Eph. 4:17-18); who have futile thoughts and foolish darkened hearts (Rom. 1:21) obviously cannot develop a just body of laws apart from thinking God’s thoughts after Him. God’s special revelation is the only place mankind can find a truly just, infallible, reliable, non-arbitrary law-system. “In Your light we see light” (Ps. 36:9). “The commandment is a lamp, and the law a light” (Pr. 6:23). One cannot serve two masters (Mt. 6:24). It is impossible to simultaneously adhere to biblical law (the law of Christ) and heathen law-systems. Although there may be surface points of agreement between a Christian law order and a pagan system (e.g., murder is wrong) at bottom each is fundamentally different for one stands upon the bedrock of Scripture while the other flows from rebellious, sinful human autonomy. “Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4).

Modern professing Christians who have adopted a position of “neutrality” with regard to civil laws and affairs have themselves adopted a position that is really not neutral at all. They unwittingly have endorsed a position that is hostile to a Christian law order. The results have been predictable. First, society adheres to a quasi-Christian form of natural law. Direct revelation is viewed as an embarrassment to intellectuals and much too specific for civil magistrates. As a result an appeal is made to general revelation, which in a post fall world is vague and malleable. Society at this time is directed in a general manner by the Christian world-view. Second, natural law theory is co-opted by anti-Christian secularists. Men appeal to natural law as something objective, but the transcendent, the supernatural and the divine are rejected for an immanent natural order. The personal God of the Bible and His special revelation are left out of the picture. At this point men pretend to be objective; however, it is their autonomous minds apart from God’s word that determine what is true and right. Third, there is a shift among intellectuals toward evolutionary thinking. Law is then considered as something that is non-objective and always changing. This last stage leads directly to legal positivism, pragmatism and secular humanism. Law is simply whatever society says it is. This view says that there are no ethical absolutes.

When Christians accept neutrality (e.g., any non-biblically defined version of natural law) in the civil sphere they sign a peace treaty with those at war with Christ and His people. They open the gates for the Trojan horse of secular humanism and its fruits (statism, abortion on demand, sodomite rights, anti-Christian legislation, etc.). Because law is inescapably religious, believers who adopt a portion of neutrality enable their enemies to disestablish the Christian law order (e.g., as seen in the puritan and colonial eras) and replace it with a godless humanism. “Christian scholars have endlessly asserted the existence of neutral, ‘natural’ laws that can serve as the church’s earthly hope of the ages, an agreeable middle way that will mitigate the conflict in history between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. The winner of such a naive quest will always be the kingdom of man. Theoretical neutrality means man’s operational autonomy: men do not have to consider what God requires or threatens in history.” (7)

Third, given the fact that neutrality is impossible, all law systems are founded on a particular world view or faith commitment. As Rushdoony has pointed out, “It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.” (8) In a society where laws are determined by majority vote and/or public opinion, one could say that mankind (or a majority of the populace) is the god of that society. In an Islamic society the Koran or the false god taught by Mohammed (or perhaps Mohammed himself) is the god of that society. There are Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu and even animist law orders. This fact does not mean that in the modern world cultures do not pragmatically borrow laws and rules from other cultures; they often do. (e.g, In the nineteenth century Japan, which had a Shinto religious base and an emperor cult, borrowed laws and procedures from the west as a path to power, economically and militarily.) However, it does give us insight regarding any society. One can examine the laws of a particular culture and ask: “Why is it wrong to discriminate against homosexuals?” or even, “Why does your culture outlaw murder?” If one responds, “Well, it is against the law;” then one should ask, “Yes, but why is it against the law? Why does your society say that it is wrong (i.e., unethical) to commit murder, or discriminate against sodomites or disallow infanticide (i.e., partial birth abortion).” If one drives the argument, the reasoning, back to its original starting point, then one can discover the faith commitment or presupposition regarding reality behind the laws of a particular culture.

When one applies this process to the American law system it is evident that our society is functioning under a secular humanistic law order with some remaining remnants of a Christian law system (e.g., laws based on biblical ethics which are intended to protect the family). In a Christian nation the state understands its responsibility under Christ to implement biblical law by applying the moral principles of divine revelation to modern culture. Neither government leaders, nor judges nor the people have the right to add or detract from Jehovah’s perfect ethical standard (Dt. 4:2; Pr. 30:6). “Nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have….Neither positive law nor natural law can reflect more than the sin and apostasy of man: revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society.” (9) However, in modern America laws are made or changed solely based upon the opinion of the people. This law-making process can be by direct vote (the will of the majority), by persons elected by the majority (e.g., the congress and senate), or by declaration of a court (e.g., the supreme court). But, what is the standard, foundation or basis of the various decisions by the people, legislature or courts. Is it God’s law, the unchanging standard of righteousness? No. Appeals to the Bible are deemed a violation of church and state.The only decision acceptable is one based on the autonomous choice of the people. Appeals can be made to human reason, utility, fairness, pragmatics, equality and so on. But, by eliminating all appeals to the transcendent and absolute (the unchanging law of God) society is set adrift on an ocean of arbitrary human desires. Such is the essence of humanism-the exaltation and worship of man. It is the religion of the serpent who said to Eve, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). In American circles of power, truth is whatever idea wins the latest popularity contest. “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Jdg. 17:6). “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Pr. 14:12).

America’s radical departure from biblical law toward secular humanistic law raises an important question. Why do the majority of professing Christians in this nation ignore or disregard the emergence of an anti-Christian secularism in the schools, courts and legislatures? A major reason is that modern humanism has disguised its hatred of biblical Christianity under the cover of “pluralism.” America, it is argued, is a nation of great diversity that can only exist peacefully under the flag of religious tolerance. Therefore, the humanists have nurtured a two-tiered system. There is the polytheism and pluralism of the masses. But in the important matters of law there is the secular rule of the humanistic elite. One often observes Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant politicians on television assuring people not to worry, that their personal religious beliefs have no influence on the manner in which they will vote and determine legislation. In other words, “In my personal life I believe in God but when I enter the public arena I am an operational atheist.” In the name of neutrality and tolerance the humanists have taken power with the full consent of a majority of Christians. It is only in the last forty years as the humanists have grossly perverted justice (e.g., the legalization of abortion) and openly expressed its hatred of Christianity that many Christians have become alarmed. Secular humanism is an aggressive religion that is evangelistic and expansive; it seeks total jurisdiction over every area of life. It is the same philosophy that at bottom lies behind Nazism and Marxism.

Christians today must wake up and understand that there are two alternatives for American culture. There is theonomy or autonomy. There is humanistic law or biblical law. There is the tyranny of the secular state that rules by its own decrees and grants or repeals rights as it sees fit; or there is liberty, freedom and justice under God’s unchanging, objective, absolute standard. With God’s law all men, both rulers and citizens are under the same objective law-word. The freedom and incredible cultural advances of the West did not happen by accident. As societies place themselves under the rule of Christ and submit to His law they make great advances in godly dominion. When Christians reject the necessity of biblical law for all areas of life (including the public square) they invite rival philosophies to fill the void. We must put into use the tools of dominion. We must conquer by the Word and Spirit or we will be persecuted by a rival religious faith.

http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/1stCom.htm

Pastor Brian Schwertley on the need for covenanted uniformity in American Presbyterianism in the United States

December 15, 2012

 

 

 

Richard Cameron on the ignorance of the Westminster Standards and the spread of Romanism

November 8, 2012

Richard Cameron bewailed the ignorance of the Westminster Standards, fearing that it would encourage the spread of Romanism in Scotland:

“There is a great ignorance even of the very first principles of religion. It will be very easy, Sirs, to introduce Popery into Scotland. Oh, the gross ignorance of our principles that are contained in our Catechisms, larger and shorter, and Confession of Faith, sworn to in the Covenants.”

Richard Cameron, ‘Sermon on Hosea 13:9-10 (1680)′ in Sermons in times of persecution in Scotland, by sufferers for the royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ, ed. James Kerr (Edinburgh, 1880), p. 409.

Note: This is still very much true still in the United States within some conservative Presbyterian bodies.