# SLC and the Westminster Assembly - thoughts



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2004)

Matthew,

A good friend of mine, Richard Bacon did the Whitefield Ph.D/Greenville Th.D thing. Said it was a good experience.
My Th.D on "The Preaching Theology of Martyn Lloyd-Jones" is more for my own benifit than anything else. I find his general theology of preaching to be the most Biblical example since the the Erskines. There is a good chance that my duties as a pastor will greatly deter my progress in a Th.D, but that is a welcome distraction.
I will be interested in your thesis when it is done. Will you be covering the Solemn League and Covenant at all in your thesis? As you know, the Independent Brethren swore to the SL&C just as the Presbyterians did, but with a different end in sight. The SL&C was not a presbyterian covenant, it was ecumenical. Surely this plays a big part in the debate on Ecclesiology at Westminster? J.D. Douglas' book, Light in the North: The Story of the Scottish Covenanters is a good source of documentation on this topic. I have a small article on it as well on my blog, titled, "œThe Ecumenical Covenant of 1646". 

Kind regards,

JOwen
www.apcvan.ca/Jerblog


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2004)

JOwen - 

I updated your signature to include a link to your blog so you do not have to type it out every time.

As for the SLC - I think the Independent's agenda is counter to the SLC itself. It states that they were to uphold theology as it is in the REFROMED churches. The SLC was only ecumencial to the Independents - the Scottish commissioners and the English Presbyterians held a different view (as exemplified to the 30,000 written works at the time on debunking the Independent position). That held quite a bit of weight in thier day, and referred to the Reformed Churches throughout Europe which were already Presbyterial. So what were they thinking? That will be part of the work. Also I will focus on the Grand Debate itself, the outcome, and the implications for us today (which are immense).


----------



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2004)

Thanks for updating my signature!

I think Henderson's words as told by McCrie are quite telling, namely, that the Scots knew that a new form would be set down for everyone. When the SL&C was finally settled upon it had gone through several revisions by the Independent Parliament so as to make everyone happy. I think most knew it was a starting point, the ending point being the WCF. This is why I believe that the Dissenting Brethren were not schismatics, even though they broke with my beloved presbytery.

Kind regards,

JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2004)

> This is why I believe that the Dissenting Brethren were not schismatics, even though they broke with my beloved presbytery.



That's the crux of it. Ii think they were schismatic, based not only from the break with Presbytery, but also in the way in which ordination works (and they knew that - especially seen in Goodwin's "sweat" with trying to win arguments in the WA minutes. He knew if the Independents failed in persauding them, it would be all over (and it was, except Cromwell came in with the army and forced Independency). Gotta hate those armies.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2004)

But it has to be proved from Scripture that 1) High- Presbyterianism is the alone model of Government (which I think is impossible to do), and 2) That these men broke away out of something other than Biblical convictions. Anything short of this is not schism. The fact that their ordination process is different than the Presbyterian system does not change the fact that their consciences as exercised by Scripture were bound to decent. Wittiness the Brethren, 

"œWhereas the uniformity sworn to in the covenant [Solemn League and Covenant-JL], is now urged here upon this occasion, and continually upon the like turned as the great argument against us in pulpits, presses, and ordinary treaties, as if what we desire were contrary thereunto: this argument cannot hold against us, without affixing an interpretation upon that part of the covenant, and that according to our brethren's principles only, to the prejudice of ours; who when we took this national covenant were known to be of the same principles [Congregationalists-JL] we now are of; and yet this covenant, was professedly so attempered in the first framing it, as that we of different judgments might take it, both parties being present at the framing of it in Scotland: and if this should be the way of urging, it is as free for us to give our interpretation, of the latitude or nearness of uniformity intended, as for our brethren; we have been present at the debates of the assembly about it, and well know and remember the sense that there was held forth thereof; and further the assembly being appointed by order of the honourable house of commons bearing date September 15, 1643".

The point here is schism can not occur over a scripturally bound conscience else liberty of conscience is violated (Romans 14). Too many Covenanters were far too zealous in their attempt to force their position on others. They go over the line by insisting that these men are devious, and evil covenant breakers RATHER that believe their conscience was under the weight of scriptural demand. Its is in effect calling Goodwin and Burroughs lairs and falsifiers. Far better in my opinion to give the benefit of the doubt to "œtheir words", and leave the "œintent of the heart" to the Lord of the Conscience on that Great Day. 

It also makes me suspicious of a system of government that while claiming to be the divine right, has actually only happened ONCE in the complete history of the Church ...and that for only 10 years. To me, a smaller form of Reformed Presbyterianism is more likely, and functions best on Reformed Catholicity, not separation.

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,
JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2004)

I think your concern is good, and what the dissenters actually tried to pass off, but I think it is missing the mark. 

"sworn and subscribed by all true professors of the *reformed * religion."

"and being of one *reformed * religion"

"the *preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland*,"

"That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and *government*, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and *government*, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best *reformed * Churches; and shall endeavor to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, *Form of Church Government*, Directory for Worship and Catechizing; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us."

Here is the problem - they are confessing and signing a document that is suppose to establish the Reformed faith - which is NOT Independecy, no matter how they slice it or attest to or against it. Instead, their agenda (and they had an agenda) was to overthrow Presbyterianism. I would not say that Presbyterianism was known only for 10 years. Calvin and Beza's Presbyterianism is as good as the Reformed church saw in the first 200 years of the church until episcopacy overthrew that through a ton of political ingenuities. In England, it was reestablished, then overthrown by the army, not by scripture.

Congregationalism cannot be proven from Scripture, and I believe Presbyterianism has been proven, and can be proven.



> The point here is schism can not occur over a scripturally bound conscience else liberty of conscience is violated (Romans 14).



Of course it can. Schism occurs every time those who believe something not in accordance with the truth reject it and start up their own church, or denomination. To break away from the church by conscience is no argument at all. It has nothing to do with the non-essentials in Romans 14. The authority of Christ is of great essential understanding, especially wen you sign your name to the document. The nature of schism is based, not on conscience, but on the truth. Then comes the matter of who ordained the first independent? An independent? 




> Its is in effect calling Goodwin and Burroughs lairs and falsifiers



No, just very mistaken. They are though, *gravely * mistaken in their views of ordination and church government. Again, that is why Goodwin was writhing in his seat when this was coming up. He knew if he did not win them over, it was the end of independency forever. It speaks on who is lawfully ordained and who is not. It is an overthrow of Christ's authority to rule His church - that makes this whole issue - A Grand Debate. 

So the dissertation is going to cover all of this based on the actual historical documents themselves (of which I have about 125 of them).


----------



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2004)

I' m looking forward to your dissertation indeed.

A few thoughts:

1.The Westminster Assembly was an appointed body, not by a Church, but by a Parliament, of which the Scots were a few commissioners, so it was not a Scottish Presbyterian Assembly.

2. "œReformed" as per the SL&C had yet to be defined at the point of signing. Plus, Westminster did not reflect true Scottish Presbyterianism ala the "œScottish Confession", but was a concession to the English on several points. In other words, "œReformed" was yet to be defined. It was something like a blank check for the victors.

3. The Independents were never a part of the Scottish Church so it is not correct to call them schismatic from a Church they never belonged to. If one wishes to call the Resolutioners of 1651 schismatic would be allowable under the circumstances, but not Brethren who were never in the same Church Visible.


I agree with you that Presbyterianism is the right system. But which form of Presbyterianism? Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland? Free Church of Scotland?Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland? Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland? RPCNA? PCA? OPC? The point is none of these denominations see Presbyterianism the "œexact" same way. In fact, most of them have strong elements of Independency in them. I do not know of a single Presbyterian body of the last 200 years that are true Westminster Presbyterians with all the bells and whistles. Someone might point to the Edmonton Steelites, but they can't get passed the local kirk session in government (which leaves them de facto Independents).
Every other "œpresbyterian" denomination, including my own strict subscriptionist, exclusive psalms singing, hat wearing, common cup drinking, sabbath keeping, Roman Catholic is the Harlot believing, postmillennialist Presbyterian Church is a far cry from the "œkind" of Presbyterianism at Westminster. And good for us. I think as a framework, the WCF is the best there is. I just see the Covenants as being far too elastic to hand over to the Covenanter. 

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,

JOwen:bigsmile:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2004)

> I do not know of a single Presbyterian body of the last 200 years that are true Westminster Presbyterians with all the bells and whistles.



I agree with you here.




> "œReformed" as per the SL&C had yet to be defined at the point of signing.



Not if they were following (or meaning) what the European Reformed churches were doing (and they were) as following Calvin.



[Edited on 12-15-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2004)

> "œReformed" as per the SL&C had yet to be defined at the point of signing.



Not if they were following (or meaning) what the European Reformed churches were doing (and they were) as following Calvin.



[Edited on 12-15-2004 by webmaster] [/quote]

Sorry, could you fill me in on what you mean by this? My Canadian mind gets a bit of frostbite during the winter months.

Kind regards,

JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

Jochaim Westphal (a Lutheran Theologian) in debating Calvin on theology, coined the term that stuck based on Calvin's understanding of the BIble. Those who followed Calvin's sacramental theology, his form of church discipline (i.e. church goivernment in Geneva) and the Insitutes' theology, were known as "Reformed". Thus, the Reformed churches in the European sector, apart from The Isalnd, has a clear understanding about what they thought "Reformed" meant. The Scottish Commissioners knew it as well, and why they pressed the SLC on the Assembly BEFORE they set forth to work out the theology behind what they kinew was "Reformed" all over the continent.

We don't get frostbite donw here. We pull out our winter parkers when it hits 50 degrees.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 15, 2004)

Matthew,

I was down in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina this past summer. The heat was unbelievable and the humidity was, well, like a wet furnace!.

Some thoughts:

Very well that the Scots knew what "Reformed" was in the broad and general sense of the term. But now it was the narrow and strict sense that was being defined at Westminster. This is where the Independents, (who by the way were very well received in Reformed Holland as Independents), disagreed as to the nature of 2 aspects of the sum of Reformed thought, not to the bulk. 

The SL&C was pressed on the Assembly before the work began, but it was so altered by the Parliament as to allow Presbyterians (both Scottish & English), Independents, and Anglicans to swear to it. I simply can not see how one can escape this fact. It was edited to allow for a wide birth of opinion upon entry (in the general sense) to convene so as to create a narrower sense (the Confession). Once the narrower sense cut across the Independents conscience, they dissented. Going beyond this, In my humble opinion, is to motive read.
I agree that the Independents were wrong in their objection, but I simply can not agree with the term schismatic as they were never apart of the same constituted Church. :bigsmile:

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,
JOwen


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

JO-

If the Presbyterian scheme is right (at whatever level), would you say that Independents are ordained? or no? If they are ordained, would you redefine the church to suit that (as they did), or...how?

Becuase either way (however you "want" to define "Reformed") still, church government presupposes authority, and authority presupposes a grid for that authority (i.e. in this case Presbyterianism). So if Presbyterians are right, and everyone else is wrong, then how could one who is not a Presbyterian be an ordained individual based on ordination by the apsotles, then by eldership? It woudl also be a violation of the SLC to take a different view after the Assembly had voted and secured the rightful place of church government and oridnation. The Indepejndents should have consittued thier votes under the authority of the divines as recanting thier previous position (if really upholding the SLC) and following suit - but they did not and instead dissented (or rendered schism). If they are right "as well", it would be an impossibility to forge any kind of church government, and Independents of every sort would be self ordained (and Nye, Burroughs, Goodwin, Bridges et al. knew that.) (This "schism approach" was the argument for Rome against the Reformers - Turretin of which has a great response which I am going to expound upon in the dissertation on schism).


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2004)

Matt,

Even assuming that the Presbyterian scheme is correct, couldn't it be _bene esse_ rather than _esse _of the Church? If that is the case, would it not make a difference for schism?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

Here is the thing Fred - let's say you are the Presbyterian, I am the Congregationalist, Scott is the Anglican. We decide to hold a colloquium, to set the record straight on which widget is best. We all have our widgets. We decidee that the outcome of the widget controversy is going to be "THE" widget for all of us. As a matter of fact, we vowed to uphold forming the best widget by covenanting with each other under a solmen oath that we would uphold THE best widget. The debate begins, rages on for a few days (you take copious notes), and let's say Scott wins. At that point, we bow out, as men under the covenant authority which we willingly placed ourselves, and we all become Anglican widget holders. Without that covenant, we could never agree or disagree on anything, not really (which was the Scottish position) and it would have just been an exercise in widget futility. Even worse, it was the state that called us to consider those widgets because of all the widget problems we have been having over the years. But then, you and I decide, because of our widget convictions, to go with our original convictions, rather than was what said at the colloquium. So, we write up a number of papers defending our position, and ferociously debate, on our own, the same widget truths. We don't want to become Anglicans, so we uphokld our own widgets and decide not to uphold the oath. As a matter of fact, the Presidency changes hands, the Constitutional Party remarkably comes to power, and they force thier widgets (say your's Fred) to be the "country" widget. Well, Scott is upset, I'm upset, and your happy because you have political power. We appeal again to our own convictions, but Scott appeals to both the oath we took, and the outcome.

Ultaimtely we have to ask if Christ's wuhtority is of esse, or bene esse of the church. I think Calvin implied it is of utmost importacne based on disicpline, which implies authority.

[Edited on 12-15-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## JOwen (Dec 15, 2004)

Pardon me for not making myself clear. I feel like we are ships passing in the night here. 

I am not saying that the Independent brethren were right in their position. Quite the contrary in fact. But these men can not be schismatics. Not in the Biblical definition because while they were covenanted, they were not covenanted to anything but a social, parliamentary-appointed covenant that was altered to suit all parties before Westminster convened. There was no Church from which to depart from as there was no official state Church to which they all belonged (this was the purpose of the Westminster Assembly). They did not all swear to "Westminster Presbyterianism" before Westminster Presbyterianism was codified, else they would have violated Chapter 22 of the Confession that states men can not swear to anything but "what he is fully persuaded is the truth". If Henderson admits that a "new system is to be set down for us all", how could they have sworn to the old Scottish model? It simply does not follow. There are only two possibilities in my mind on this: 1) The Independent Brethren either dishonored on their original Covenant obligation (making them falsifiers and covenant breakers to which there is only ad hominem evidence), or 2) They understood the Solemn League and Covenant in light of their own principles and found Westminster closed- up on that possibility (which their own words indicate). There does not seem to be a third option in my mind.

I'm not so much arguing for the validity of the Independent view of Church Government as "another true" government, as I am arguing against the Covenanter view of the Independents in light of the Solemn League and Covenant. Do I think a Baptist has a valid view of infants and the Covenant? No! But are they schismatics because of it? No. Their own conscience, as instructed by their understanding of the Word, makes them erring Brethren, not schismatics. 
I'm not sure I have made myself any clearer. Oh- Well

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## sastark (Dec 15, 2004)

Matt and Jerrold, 

I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, but did want to add that I find it extremely interesting and very beneficial. Keep it up!

Also, Matt, when is that dissertation going to be done? If it is dealing with the same issues being discussed here, I'd like to read it.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> So, we write up a number of papers defending our position, and ferociously debate, on our own, the same widget truths. We don't want to become Anglicans, so we uphokld our own widgets and decide not to uphold the oath.
> 
> [Edited on 12-15-2004 by webmaster]



But they did uphold the oath, Matthew. I have not read of a single Independent Divine changing his mind on the oath. Remember, the oath was "according to the Word of God" which preempts any " example of the best reformed Churches". The Independents had the phrase "according to the Word of God" inserted before "best reformed Churches" so they could subscribe to the Covenant. It was a Scottish concession to the Independents.

Until someone produces a pre- Covenant commentary explaining each term of the SL&C, and that every signer of the oath knew EXACTLY the forms to be set down, we must assume it was an elastic Covenant with many hopes for many people.

Kind regards,
Jerrold


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

Jerodl, you have defintely made yourself clear. I'm going to opt on the third option, and will write on it. If the SLC was stetched as an elastic covenant (intereing use of imagery) then one it snapped back into place, they should have conformed to the truth of the Word (i.e. the governemtnal structure agree dupon). By dissenting from it, that makes them schismatic after the facts are in, not before.

And I am not sure why you think the idea of "being Reformed" was something unknown to the Puritans. Turretin, Van Mastricht, etc. use the term quite specifically based on the Reformers. Being Reformed to them meant something specific, even if the Independts would ahve wanted to change that meaning.


[Edited on 12-16-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## JOwen (Dec 15, 2004)

You said, "œthey should have conformed to the truth of the Word (i.e. the governmental structure agreed upon). " This is the point, and the crux of the discussion: the Word of God according to whom? The resultant majority? If the end result is against the conscience of the subscriber, is he to give in by popular vote? What if the Church government debate would have wound up Anglican or somewhere between English Presbyterianism and Prelacy? Would Rutherford be bound to it simply because the Assembly went that way, and he swore to the Covenant? This places the SL&C above the conscience and indeed above the Scriptures. I can't see it working myself, but perhaps I am not following the depth of your argument on it. I must admit you have peaked my interest. 

On another note:

"œReformed" up until the Westminster Assembly was much more fluid that we think for the simple reason that our forefathers were still clearing the Roman dross away. Calvin had begun a Covenant (Federal) Theology, but several others developed it. The same can be said for the RPW, the Covenant of Works, Assurance of Salvation, and even the sacraments to some extent. We should be reminded that regarding ecclesiology, there were stark differences between the Continental Dutch Reformed and the Swiss, not to mention the British and French. Yes, they all believed in government by presbyters, elders, and deacons, and in higher courts (some would rather say broader), not to mention a distinction between ruling and teaching bishops, etc. But there was much to work out because there was no uniformity. Know one was arguing that there was not a jus divinum, just no uniformity on that divine right. Thomas Goodwin for instance believed in broader courts but only in an advisory capacity, very close to the Dutch model, that teaches the local consistory holds the most authority. I think this is why it was called the Second Reformation, because it went farther in reform than the first.
Matthew, I am content to wait on your dissertation for the full argument. You have already been gracious enough in entertaining my thoughts thus far. 
Thank you for the delightful discussion.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 16, 2004)

Jerold, Your a delight to talk to as well.




> I must admit you have peaked my interest.





Hopefully the work on this will be satisfying to us both.
I don't want you to think I am one of those onthe wrong end of the Steelite controversy. That is not the case at all. But in working on the history behind the Assembly, I call my own ordination into account with some of these questions, so it hits home. We will see how it plays out.


----------

