WCF: Marks of the Church Questions

[Covenant Joel]

I've been doing some research and thinking on how the marks of the church and means of grace relate to gospel work in unreached places. In the process of thinking about this, I have been trying to understand more of the logic behind the WCF on the marks of the church. I have read Sproul, Van Dixhoorn (not his multi-volume on the minutes, as I don't have access to it), Williamson, Letham, and a variety of others, but I have been unable to find any help on this question. So if anyone has any information, it would be appreciated.

I am wondering about several different aspects of WCF 25.4:
This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

Here are my specific questions:
(1) Why does the WCF use the language of "doctrine of the gospel taught and embraced"? I.e., in other confessions, and in common parlance, we hear "The word preached." The WCF does not say that, but says much more specifically "the gospel taught."
(2) Still in relation to that same phrase, why did they add "and embraced"? What is the significance of that? What did the divines have in mind there? Was it in some ways a connection to the third mark in the continental tradition?
(3) Why did the divines make the third mark about pure public worship as opposed to discipline (as in the continental tradition)?
(4) Are the first two marks (or at least the first especially) intended to be seen as broader than what happens in public worship, given that the third mark already covers public worship separately? I.e., similar to my Q1, can "Taught and embraced" be limited to public worship? Marks 1 and 2 would seem a bit redundant (or the third would), if they're all just saying the same thing, as public worship is obviously made us largely of the gospel being taught and ordinances being administered.

Any historical help that can be provided here would be appreciated. I have been unable to find much help in systematics (Bavinck, Vos, Hodge, etc), nor WCF commentaries.

 

[Taylor]

For Calvin, one of the marks of a true church was not just the right preaching, but also the right hearing of the Word: “Wherever we find the word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ; there, it is not to be doubted, is a Church of God” (Institutes 4.1.9).

Regarding the notable absence of church discipline in the Westminster Standards, church discipline is included under the right administration of the sacraments, of which faithful discipline is a necessary part.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I checked Van Dixhoorn's edition of the Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly and any debate on 25.4, if there was any, didn't make it into record (there were significant debates from the congregationalists and Erastians on other parts of the chapter). There is a lot of this paragraph seen in the Irish Articles: Of the Church, and outward ministry of the Gospel: 68. "But particular and visible Churches (consisting of those who make profession of the faith of Christ, and live under the outward means of salvation) be many in number: wherein the more or less sincerely according to Christ’s institution, the word of God is taught, the Sacraments are administered, and the authority of the Keys is used, the more or less pure are such Churches to be accounted."

I've been doing some research and thinking on how the marks of the church and means of grace relate to gospel work in unreached places. In the process of thinking about this, I have been trying to understand more of the logic behind the WCF on the marks of the church. I have read Sproul, Van Dixhoorn (not his multi-volume on the minutes, as I don't have access to it), Williamson, Letham, and a variety of others, but I have been unable to find any help on this question. So if anyone has any information, it would be appreciated.

I am wondering about several different aspects of WCF 25.4:
This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

Here are my specific questions:
(1) Why does the WCF use the language of "doctrine of the gospel taught and embraced"? I.e., in other confessions, and in common parlance, we hear "The word preached." The WCF does not say that, but says much more specifically "the gospel taught."
(2) Still in relation to that same phrase, why did they add "and embraced"? What is the significance of that? What did the divines have in mind there? Was it in some ways a connection to the third mark in the continental tradition?
(3) Why did the divines make the third mark about pure public worship as opposed to discipline (as in the continental tradition)?
(4) Are the first two marks (or at least the first especially) intended to be seen as broader than what happens in public worship, given that the third mark already covers public worship separately? I.e., similar to my Q1, can "Taught and embraced" be limited to public worship? Marks 1 and 2 would seem a bit redundant (or the third would), if they're all just saying the same thing, as public worship is obviously made us largely of the gospel being taught and ordinances being administered.

Any historical help that can be provided here would be appreciated. I have been unable to find much help in systematics (Bavinck, Vos, Hodge, etc), nor WCF commentaries.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Thank you both for those responses.