In
Response to The Reformed Presbyterian Church
of Scotland and the Revolution Settlement by
Rev. Kenneth stewart
by
J. Parnell McCarter
Date 06/15/2020
Rev. Kenneth Stewart has
written an article appearing at https://www.rpcscotland.org/history/the-reformed-presbyterian-church-of-scotland-and-the-revolution-settlement/
. As a member of the Free Presbyterian Church
of Scotland (FPCS), I have been asked my response to it.
Let me begin by
referencing articles I have written in the past related to the topic at least
indirectly:
·
http://www.puritans.net/articles/subscriptionism.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/churchunion022508.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/bannerman051107.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/westminsterstds012108.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/articles/naparc.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/articles/ats.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/multidenominational012108.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/rpna011008.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/news/fpcs070605.htm
·
http://www.puritans.net/bookreviewseconddisruption.htm
Let me also note from
the brief article at http://www.puritans.net/news/magistrate072804.htm
what lies at the heart of the difference between historic “Reformed
Presbyterianism” versus Revolution Settlement Presbyterianism (such as the Seceders): the doctrinal difference relating to the civil
magistracy. Historic “Reformed Presbyterianism” has asserted that the civil
government in Britain was not legitimate which did not uphold the Solemn League
and Covenant, whereas Revolution Settlement Presbyterianism has asserted that the
civil government in Britain has sinned and erred in not upholding the Solemn
League and Covenant but is nevertheless legitimate. The Westminster Confession itself is not
silent on the issue, for in its chapter on the civil magistrate it teaches: “"Infidelity,
or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal
authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him…" The historic “Reformed Presbyterianism” is described at https://www.localprayers.com/XX/Unknown/409293559204900/Reformed-Presbyterian-Covenanted
thus:
It is also noted at http://www.westyrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20091212-Evening-Study-1688-1761.pdf
: “In 1733, Erskine, Wilson, Moncrieff, and Fisher seceded because the CoS allowed Arians but criticized the Marrow Men. They established the Associate Presbytery. •
Differences between the Covenanter Societies and the Associate Presbytery o Seceders said that an uncovenanted government was a
legitimate covenant. o Covenanters said
that a government in a Christian land, which repudiated the covenants, is not a
legitimate government. At this point the
Covenanter’s application of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ became a distinction.
• Why do we care about the AP? The RP
and the AP were so close in doctrine, that the covenanter societies could have
joined the Associate Presbytery. The
doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ kept the RP and AP separate from
many more years...1761 Act, Declaration, and Testimony: The High Water Mark
of Covenanter Separatism. • This
document included the first RP Testimony.
The Act, Declaration, and Testimony stated a history of the 2nd
Reformation, reasons for rejecting the reformation, differences with the Seceders, and a summary of RP principles.”
Noticeably absent in
Rev. Stewart’s article is a clear acknowledgment and defense of this central
historic Reformed Presbyterian position relating to the civil magistracy. Could
it be that Rev. Stewart is embarrassed by it and knows that he cannot defend
the indefensible? Could it be that he
strains at gnats in the Revolution Settlement church but swallows
camels in the Reformed Presbyterian (RP) church of yesterday and today? Many modern RP churches like the RPCNA (the
North American sister of the RPCS to which Rev. Stewart belongs) lack full subscription
to any reformed confession and so are effectively doctrinally latitudinarian,
accept critical text positions that thoroughly undermine the true reformed
doctrine on the word of God, and accept ungodly standards at their schools so
as to get government funding.
With that background,
let’s consider some quotes from Rev. Stewart’s article, and respond to them:
1. Rev. Stewart asserts: “The proper role of
the state when establishing the church is simply to receive from the church the
constitution which she has framed and enacted by her own intrinsic and
independent authority, and then, after mature and serious consideration, to
grant it the civil sanction.”
This statement is contrary to the Bible
and to the Westminster Standards. It is
contrary to the Bible, because kings David, Hezekiah and Josiah were commended
but went far beyond that in their relation with the church. It is contrary to the Westminster Standards,
because the civil government was much more involved than that in getting the
Westminster Standards themselves crafted and adopted.
2. Rev. Stewart asserts: “…the proof texts were
not received and neither were the Catechisms, the Form of Church Government or
the Directory of Public Worship – all of which had been received unalterably by
the Second Reformation church in the exercise of her God given freedom and
authority – as part of her fixed and covenanted constitution! Significantly, although Prelacy was
abolished, the fact that the Form of Church Government was not accepted meant
that Prelacy was not abolished on the ground that it was ‘contrary to the Word of God’ – the ground on which it had originally been
abolished – but only on the lesser ground that it was a ‘great and unsupportable grievance and trouble to
the nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people’.”
This statement is erroneous because: a.
It fails to see that the Westminster Confession comprehends in its principles
all of the principles contained in the Catechisms, etc. The concrete meaning of
the Westminster Confession is fully discovered in these other documents, such
that in adopting the Confession one is implicitly adopting the doctrines
contained in these others. b. History
after 1690 vindicates that the Westminster Confession comprehends in its
principles all of the principles contained in the Catechisms, etc. Much went
wrong as years wore on in the Church of Scotland following 1690, but disuse of
the Catechisms, prelatical convictions in the Church,
etc. were not among the problems.
3. Rev. Stewart asserts: “…King William favoured Episcopacy and was only too happy to establish Erastianism in England”.
This statement is historically
inaccurate. Prior to his arrival in England, King
William was not Anglican, but rather was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. As a Calvinist and Presbyterian, when William
became king in England, he was now in the unenviable position of being the head
of the Church of England, which was Anglican.
And England was politically, militarily and economically the most
important part of Britain. The English
did not want Presbyterianism but Anglicanism, and King William had to go along
with it in England or else forfeit the throne in England. In contrast, in Scotland he could get away
with re-introducing presbyterianism as the church
government of the established church there, which he did. The Jacobite faction in Scotland came almost
exclusively from prelatical supporters there, not
Presbyterians. King William was a
pragmatist, so he gave the English what most of them wanted (Anglicanism) and
he gave the Scottish what most of them wanted (Presbyterianism) in their
respective established churches. But to
accuse him of personally favoring Episcopacy is unfair to him and not
acknowledging the true situation he faced.
4. Rev. Stewart asserts: “…the Revolution Parliament revived
the earlier Act of 1592 as the new Magna Carta of the Established Church.
However, this Act of 1592 – passed before the church had attained to its full
covenanted commitments – gave the
civil magistrate the authority to appoint the time and place of the meeting of
the Assembly. It declared that ‘the king’s majesty, or his commissioners
appointed by his Highness, be present at each General Assembly before the
dissolving thereof, and nominate time and place when and where the next General
Assembly shall be held’. Clearly, no
true Presbyterian could grant the King such power: not only does it put it
within the power of the King to defer or prevent meetings of the General
Assembly indefinitely; it is fundamentally quite incompatible with the headship
of Christ and the independence of His church.”
No less a Presbyterian than Andrew Melville did not leave
the Church of Scotland under the Act of 1592: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Melville
. The Westminster Confession says this
as a general principle regarding calling of synodical assemblies: “The civil magistrate
may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the
power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is
his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that
the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be
suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or
reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and
observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be
present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be
according to the mind of God.” The
Church of Scotland accepted this with qualification in the 1640s. To make this an excuse for not joining the
Revolution Settlement church of 1690 would be unwarranted. And there is little or no evidence such was
abused by the British monarch following 1690 to prevent Church of Scotland
assemblies.
5. Rev. Stewart asserts: “The Revolution Settlement appeared to abolish Patronage
once more – but, in reality, it was not properly banished. Rather, it was
declared that ‘the heritors of the parish
being protestants, and the elders, are to name and propose the person to the whole
congregation, to be either approven or disapproven by them, and if they disapprove, that the
disapprovers give in their reasons to the effect that the affair may be cognised by the presbytery of the bounds’. Where there was
no land-ward parish, the right of patronage was vested in the magistrates, town
council and Kirk Session of the burgh. Significantly, it was ordained that ‘in
recompense of the said right of presentation, hereby taken away, the heritors
and life renters of said parish, and the town council for the burgh, should pay
to the said patrons the sum of six hundred merks’. These provisions
were unacceptable to faithful Presbyterians because, first, they demand a civil
as well as a religious qualification in order to exercise of a spiritual
duty—the heritors and the town council being associated with the Kirk Session
in ‘naming and proposing the person to the whole congregation’. This is an
unacceptable infringement of the rights and privileges of the people of God.”
It is doubtful that there ever would have
been an established church during the time of Knox or Melville if Rev.
Stewart’s criteria are insisted upon for there were in existence similar
arrangements in the Church of Scotland of their day. Rev. Stewart is simply wrong
as to what the Bible and the Westminster Standards allow regarding the relation
of church and state. He is demanding an
un-Biblical level of separation of the two.
It is within the purview of what the Westminster Confession teaches
thus: “ The civil
magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and
sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath
authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved
in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all
blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship
and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly
settled, administered, and observed.”
The civil magistrate has an interest in who serves as a church officer,
but the magistrate has no right to take on functions reserved for church
officers, nor to force on congregations men wholly
unqualified for the reformed ministry. It should be kept in mind though that
the civil elders may also be elected as ecclesiastical elders (albeit not
ministers), so even in this way overlap is possible. What is truly objectionable is if the civil
magistrate, contrary to the expressed determination of the church, thrusts upon
the church officers who are professed enemies of the Biblical gospel and the
reformed faith. That situation cannot be
long tolerated by the church officers and members, without rupture.
6. Rev. Stewart asserts:
“The Disruption Fathers sought
freedom for the congregation to call and induct a man of their own choice – although the church had
lived with the Act authorising this since the
Patronage Act of 1712. It would have been far better to have stood in 1690 and
asserted the following in no uncertain terms before the State: that
Presbyterian Church government is of divine right; that the whole of the
Westminster Standards were to be re-adopted as they were in the 1640’s; that
her Assemblies were to be entirely free from State interference; that all the
Acts of the Free and Independent Assemblies during the Second Reformation were
to be retained in force and, in short, that all the attainments of the Second
Reformation were to be maintained.”
Conflating the patronage situation of 1690, 1712 and 1843
ignores many important distinctions among these different situations relevant
to determination of church affiliation.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee even if things were perfect and ideal
in 1690 in church and state that such would have remained to 1843 and beyond,
given we live in a fallen world. What is more likely is this: insistence on the
ideal in church and state before one will join an established church is a
recipe for never joining an established church.
In
summary, I fear that Rev. Stewart places such a high bar on ever joining an
established church, that in a fallen world where things will always be far
below an ideal, the establishment principle effectively becomes a mere abstraction.
Also, it strikes me that most critics of the Revolution Settlement Church of
Scotland of 1690 are joined to denominations that have many more problems than
that established church did. Finally, I wonder if these words (“What about Original Westminster and all of that
extra-biblical baggage such as no make up, jewelery, stage plays, etc. You cannot claim that the FPCS holds to the original
standards therefore we need to join them- and then also require all of the
Scottish cultural baggage.“- see http://www.puritans.net/news/churchunion022508.htm) of a man now a minister
in the RPCNA come closer to the real reason more do not want to join the FPCS
than issues with the Revolution Settlement Church of Scotland of 1690. Is it perhaps easier to poke holes in the Revolution
Settlement Church of Scotland of 1690 rather than admit you do not want to join
the FPCS because you want to engage in movie entertainment?