Men are always inclined to be critical and misrepresentative when they haven't taken adequate time to understand the issues and study the works of those they are attacking. Mr. Bacon, as demonstrated in his Defense Departed, is such a man. It is one thing to read carefully and digest the arguments of one's opponent, and another thing to read one or two short articles for the purpose of drawing numerous inaccurate inferences from them (though the articles in this case are exceedingly clear and in no way support Mr. Bacon's misconstruals). Though there are obvious theological differences between Mr. Bacon and the PRCE, before continuing I must address the issues of fairness and integrity.

I contend that Mr. Bacon has so severely, either intentionally or ignorantly, overlooked the plain statements of David Steele, the Reformed Presbytery, and the PRCE, that he should be profoundly ashamed of himself. I have been involved in many debates over the years and I can honestly say that never has an opponent so blatantly ignored our plainest statements. Prejudice, in this form and intensity, must be directly answered by demonstrating that Mr. Bacon has possessed adequate information to leave him without excuse. I intend to do this by setting Mr. Bacon's statements directly against what Pastor Steele, the Reformed Presbytery and the PRCE have said.

We, as a session, sent Mr. Bacon many free books and articles to help him correctly determine what we believe. The careful reader will notice that in his Defense Departed he cites 2 or 3 small sources of information, whereas he had been given many volumes for his perusal. The point I am making is this: if Mr. Bacon really cared to honestly and fairly debate this issue with us he would never have been so foolish as to ignore our most explicit statements. I conclude that Mr. Bacon really did not want to debate, but rather wanted to slander and abuse the PRCE in retaliation for our efforts in dissociating from his pretended presbytery.

Considering that Mr. Bacon had been given free access to most of the cited works I am about to quote, I urge you, dear reader, to ask yourself these questions ­ Has Mr. Bacon been fair to the position he is attacking? Has he clearly demonstrated his opponent's position from their own works? Has he done his homework? Are these acts of poor scholarship or malicious intent, or both? The following scripture characterizes the substance of our response to this current misrepresentation.

Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart (Nehemiah 6:8 AV).

A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow (Proverbs 25:18, AV).

As we survey the evidence in the next several pages, I think the reader will be amazed at how completely Mr. Bacon has mislead his readers. I certainly had anticipated something stronger from a man of his gifts than outright denial of our explicit statements. That he has risen no higher than this is quite telling as to the bankruptcy of his positive position. To prove that Mr. Bacon has totally ignored our explicit statements, while substituting his own fictitious fantasies in their place, please consider the following examples.

1. Mr. Bacon misrepresents how we view our own church standards when he says,

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 (Defense Departed).

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 (Defense Departed).

Do we, the so­called "Steelites,"claim that the church's testimony tells us what to believe? Has Mr. Bacon honestly represented our position?

The Reformed Presbytery of Scotland responds directly to this absurd notion.

Convinced of the self­evidencing power, intrinsic worth, and divine excellencies of the Holy Scriptures, we ever wish them to be considered as a complete and sufficient rule in themselves, independent of oral law, tradition of the fathers, or any human invention whatever; and in opposition to that absurd notion,"That the true sense depends upon the church." [Can it be stated more clearly than this? ­ GB] At the same time, in our practical application of the inspired Oracles, we consider them to be a rule, as consistently understood, and properly applied. For though they be an absolutely perfect and sufficient rule in themselves, yet it is possible to mistake their true meaning; but this we endeavour to guard against the conduct of those who, while they pretend to believe in the divine authority of the Scriptures, do, meanwhile, evidently wrest them, imposing glosses which make one part of the Sacred Volume to contradict another, and which lead us away from the true scope and design of the whole (Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion, 1801, p. 161, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added).

Speaking of using Confessions of Faith and Covenants as a term of communion the Reformed Presbytery states:

It is only after mature deliberation, carefully comparing them with the Word of God, and receiving full conviction in our own minds of their being wholly founded upon it, that we consider the Confession and Catechisms, or any other human composure whatever, as properly entitled to our belief, and deserving to be ranked amongst the subordinate standards of our church. But after being convinced of their agreeableness to the infallible rule, we cheerfully receive them. It is not with the remotest intention of supplying a defect in the Oracles of truth, which we ever consider a complete rule in themselves; nor is it at all in the view of putting either the Confession, or any other book in the world, on a level with the Bible, that we adopt these explanatory standards; but purely to ascertain the true meaning of Scripture, help us to understand one another in our church­fellowship, and, through these mediums, to transmit a faithful testimony for truth from generation to generation (Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion, 1801, p. 161, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added).

A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape (Proverbs 19:5, AV).

2. Mr. Bacon says, "The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton 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 (Defense Departed).

Is it true that David Steele, the Reformed Presbytery, and the PRCE require implicit faith?

In their Preface to the Auchensaugh Renovation, a committee of the Reformed Presbytery, made up of David Steele, Robert Alexander, and John Clyde state:

The reader may be assured that neither we nor the Reformed Presbytery, whose committee we are, claim Papal infallibility or Christian perfection; nor do we ask implicit faith in our documents. But we sincerely believe ourselves that the Auchensaugh Renovation and the Bond, to which the foregoing statements are prefixed, will be found on examination to be sound, faithful and in nothing, "contrary to the Word of God"(Auschensagh Renovation, SWRB reprint, 1995, emphases added).

Beware of acting implicit faith. It is long since the error falsely imputed to us, was broached among professing Covenanters. For example ­ we heard from the mouth of a minister in that body, more than a quarter of a century ago, the declaration in the pulpit: "The first [term of communion ­ GB] is the only proper term of communion in the church, and the time is not distant, we trust, when she will have no more:" that is, when all the displays of a covenant God's justice, mercy, faithfulness, etc., in dealing with the Church and her Antichristian opposers, shall have passed into oblivion ­ an unbelieving and ungrateful hope, or desire. The Protestant world is so denominated because simply of a solemn protest against Rome's impious claim to infallibility and cognate invasions of Messiah's prerogatives. Attach the attribute of infallibility to any of the subordinate standards of our Christian profession, and we are instantly deprived of them all, as a near and necessary consequence. We sincerely hope the Covenanter [James M. Willson] will arrive at clearer light on the general subject of creeds and confessions; and, if so, we are sure he will come to a better temper. It is part of the known character of the two witnesses that they contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, as the nearest and surest way to victory. Again, we would say to the reader, beware of exercising implicit faith in human authority as well as testimony; and hold in dread all assumptions of infallibility by Pope, Prelate or Presbyterian; and especially Reformed Presbyterian, standing by the exclusive supremacy of Zion's King (David Steele, The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 41, emphases added).

David Steele adds:

Let no one imagine that I defend symbols of faith from force of habit, or because they are old, perfect, immutable, or infallible; for I have for many years repeatedly said the contrary: that no document framed by wisdom, learning, or piety of any uninspired man, or body of such, is either perfect or immutable, and much less infallible.... No, I plead not for immutability, but for the faithfulness of subordinate standards, both of doctrine and practice (David Steele, Reminiscences, 1883, SWRB, 1997, pp. 135, 136).

Now, does David Steele or other so­called "Steelites" even remotely resemble Mr. Bacon's caricature? Do we teach implicit faith? If the reader had access to this information, as did Mr. Bacon, would he have written what Mr. Bacon wrote? All he had to do was read the books we provided, or listen to Pastor Price's set of tapes on our Terms of Communion (19 cassettes, available at Still Waters Revival Books) to be forever convinced of the contrary. Instead, he ignored the evidence and printed his vain imaginations. This, clearly, shows a serious lack of scholarship and integrity!

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:16­19, AV).

3. Speaking of the Solemn League and Covenant as a term of communion, Mr. Bacon says:

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 (Defense Departed).

On December 18, 1996 (email), Mr. Bacon writes:

Necessity implies some rule other than Scripture which binds the conscience. If you wish to take the Solemn League and Covenant (which I assume you have done), no bother to me. However, the term "necessity" implies precisely the position that y'all have now taken ­ which I believe to be directly contrary to the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Does the PRCE impose the traditions of men upon others when they require the Solemn League and Covenant as a term of communion? Is this a denial of "sola scriptura"?

The Reformed Presbytery responds:

Concerning these covenants, some have proposed the query, "In what sense can they be said, as they are in our Testimony, to be of divine authority or obligation?" We reply, The divine authority of heaven's great Sovereign is, evidently, interposed, in requiring us to enter into such covenants, "Vow unto the Lord your God." And when once we have entered into them, the same divine authority binds us to performance, "Pay that which thou hast vowed." Add to these, that the great and dreadful name, THE LORD OUR GOD is invoked in the solemn transaction, while his declarative glory among men is deeply concerned in the faithful fulfilment of our engagements. So that, besides the intrinsic obligation of the covenants, viewed simply as human deeds, whereby men bind their souls, there is, in all such covenants, an obligation of divine authority, requiring first to make, and then to perform our covenants; from the invocation of the divine name, considering JEHOVAH as witness and avenger, and from the interfering with the divine glory, in the keeping or violating of our oath. Hence, in the Scripture, the same oath is, in one respect, considered as the covenant of the man giving his hand; and, in another respect, as the Lord's covenant, whose glory is concerned in it [cf. Ezek. 17: 11­21 ­ GB]. Our Testimony, if properly attended to, explains itself; telling us, the covenants "are of divine authority, or obligation, as having their foundation upon the Word of God" (Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 161, emphases added).

David Steele adds:

Even the doctrinal propositions of our Confessions and Catechisms are received, not because they are inspired or infallible; but simply because they are in the apprehension of the Christian, "agreeable to the holy Scriptures." Much more does this obviously apply to our solemn covenants as embodying the heroic achievements of our martyred and witnessing fathers. Add to these, all the real attainments of those who survived the overthrow of the "Second Reformation" (Pastor Steele's Printed Communications with the Editor of the Covenanter [James M. Willson], appended to Notes on the Apocalypse, in the forthcoming edition from Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing, pp. 400, 401, emphases added [or in Apostasy in the RPCNA, SWRB reprint, 1997]).

The evidence thus far is compelling and clear. Mr. Bacon was not even trying to accurately represent David Steele, the Reformed Presbytery or the PRCE. Though this should be enough to convince those who are open to hard evidence, I intend to belabour this point so that Mr. Bacon's dishonesty and irresponsibility will become abundantly evident, and so that none will ever have any justifiable reason for concluding that the so­called "Steelites" teach anything but historic, Reformed doctrine. What more can be done than to prove that the Covenanters have, for hundreds of years, been saying the exact opposite of what Mr. Bacon represents them to say? If our public and explicit statements will not be accepted as our statement of belief, then what can be done to convince the gainsayer?

Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts. Let those that fear thee turn unto me, and those that have known thy testimonies (Psalms 119:78­79, AV).

4. Mr. Bacon writes:

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 (Defense Departed).

Pastor David Steele aptly answers Mr. Bacon, rightly dividing that which is our alone infallible standard in matters relating to salvation from the fallible standards which are to be included in terms of communion.

No symbols of faith and order framed by uninspired men are faultless ­ much less infallible, either in substance or form: otherwise they would not be subordinate. Divine truth is the sole ground of saving faith, and is not to be confounded with Terms of Communion, as ignorance and presumption commonly do [and as Mr. Bacon has overtly done ­ GB]. Again, the testimony of Christ's witnesses in all its integral parts, is always and necessarily progressive until it shall have been finished. Even their statements of doctrine, their abstract and distinctive principles may, and often must be restated in diversified language, to meet the ever shifting position and subtile sophisms of adversaries. Also our Covenants, National and Solemn League may and ought to be renewed ­ not that they have become old, as many say; but that they are to be owned as obligatory upon us, and a sense of their permanent obligation deepened upon our own souls, and exhibited to others by the solemnity of an Oath (The Reformed Presbytery, A Short Vindication of the Covenanted Reformation, 1879, SWRB reprint, 1996, p. 19, emphases added).

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth (Revelation 11:3, AV).

Commenting on the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3 Pastor Steele says:

Consider the number of these witnesses; they are two, as this is the smallest number that can establish truth, Deut.17:6; 19:15. The Lawgiver himself, addressing the Jews, says: "It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true," John 8:17. Not that we are to receive the testimony of every two men. The experience of all men is that "a false witness will utter lies;" and it is sometimes found that two may "agree together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord," Acts 5:9. But on the supposition that the witnesses are competent and credible; then it is the decision of Christ, endorsed by the common sentiment of mankind, that "we receive the witness of such men," 1 John 5:9. And although "the witness of God is greater" than that of any number of men; still, human witnesses do not need to be inspired to render their testimony credible; for then [if the witnesses are inspired ­ GB], as the reader will perceive, the testimony is that of God, and of course ceases to be human testimony. This point is of the greatest moment, since not one word uttered by these two witnesses is inspired in the proper and formal sense of inspiration! This is too great an honour to confer upon the very chiefest of our covenanted confessors or martyrs. It savours too much of Rome (David Steele, The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 7, emphases added).

Human witnesses do not need to be inspired to render their testimony credible. When did right testimony ever oppose one jot or tittle of the Word of God? Is all human testimony to be rejected because some men lie? Will we throw away the gold because its mixed with the dross? We do not plead for an infallible testimony, since that is both unscriptural and impossible for mere men. That which we plead for is a faithful testimony which is in agreement with the alone infallible standard for faith and practice ­ the Word of God. That does not mean, however, that we cannot use credible testimony, subordinate to the Word of God, to aid us in determining agreement in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.

The Reformed Presbytery explains:

Meanwhile, in exhibiting our testimony, we make no pretensions to infallibility or perfection. Our design, we hope, is good, but we are very sensible that human weakness and infirmity must always be discernible in our best performances. We do not assert, either with respect to our own, or the other testimonies which we approve, that there are no incautious expressions in these compositions. Considering the time, and the peculiarly trying circumstances, in which the compilers of them existed, and considering that they were men of like passions with others, it would, perhaps, be rather unreasonable to expect so much. But if none of the precious truths, stated and vindicated in these testimonies, be given up; if none of the errors or immoralities which they condemn be countenanced; or, in other words, if the whole substance be conscientiously retained; we mean not to differ with those who may plead that some particular modes of expression might be altered for the better.

Let it also be carefully observed here, that, with regard to the Deeds of which we speak [the Scriptural testimonies and earnest contendings of Christ's faithful witnesses ­ GB], we wish to be understood in the same sense as before, concerning the Confession of Faith and the Covenants. It is only after diligently perusing, pondering, and comparing these testimonies with the Word of God, and after finding them to be founded upon, and agreeable unto it, that we mean to rank them among the subordinate standards of our church. But, as two, or more, cannot consistently walk together in church­fellowship, unless they be agreed in sentiment concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church, and concerning the proper way of glorifying God upon earth, we reckon it exceedingly requisite that this agreement should be properly ascertained. For that important purpose, amongst others, these testimonies seem to be very much calculated. And it is only to such of them as truly deserve the characteristic epithets of SCRIPTURAL AND FAITHFUL, that we require the assent of our church members. If any are disposed to question the propriety of applying these designations, either to our own, or to the rest which we approve, we are always ready, as opportunity offers, to reason the matter with them. If we can agree, it is well; "Let us strive together for the faith of the Gospel, and continue steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." If we cannot agree, we must part in peace. For we never entertained the remotest thought that these matters were to be adjusted by any other weapons than those of Scripture and reason, under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit (The Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion, SWRB reprint, 1995, pp. 188­189, emphases added).

Now, compare the above statements of the so­called "Steelites," who plead for fallible historical testimony, subordinate to God's Word, with the doctrine of Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, who pleads for oral and Papal infallibility equal to God's Word.

Lorraine Boettner defines the doctrine of Roman Catholic Tradition as follows:

We have said that the most controversial issue between Protestants and Roman Catholics is the question of authority ­ What is the final seat of authority in religion? ­ and that Protestants hold that the Bible alone is the final rule of faith and practice, while Roman Catholics hold that it is the Bible and tradition as interpreted by the church. In actual practice the Roman Church, since the infallibility decree of 1870, holds that the final seat of authority is the pope speaking for the church (Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962, p. 89).

Steele, to the contrary, comments:

Let no one, however, imagine that we consider our Testimony infallible. No, it still ranks among the subordinate standards of our covenanted profession; and for years we have asked cooperation in its readjustment ­ cooperation, by those possessing Scriptural and covenant qualification (The Reformation Advocate, edited by David Steele, Vol. 1, No. 9, March 1876, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 259).

Has Mr. Bacon been fair? Has he made an honest and accurate comparison between us and the Papists? As the reader examines the statements produced by faithful Covenanters (the so­called "Steelites"), is it his impression that we want to put the Bible on par with anything? In contrast to Mr. Bacon, how does the reader interpret our first term of communion, "An acknowledgement of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice"? What does the phrase "alone infallible" mean to him? Does it mean one among many infallible rules?

Mr. Bacon is either guilty of wilful ignorance or malicious intent. Perhaps his intellect is so clouded with anger and emotion that he has abandoned all desire to argue with integrity. Dear reader, can anyone fail to see how Mr. Bacon has grossly misrepresented the position of the PRCE, the Reformed Presbytery, and our faithful covenanted forefathers.

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you (Deuteronomy 19:16­19, AV).

Consider the testimony for which the faithful and honorable martyr James Renwick suffered and died (and note the similarity between his dying testimony and our terms of communion) and ask yourself ­ Has Mr. Bacon faithfully represented Renwick's position?

Dear Friends, I die a Presbyterian Protestant; I own the Word of God as the rule of faith and manners; I own the Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Sum of Saving Knowledge, Directory for Public and Family Worship, Covenants, National and Solemn League, Acts of General Assemblies, and all the faithful contendings that have been for the Covenanted Reformation. I leave my testimony approving the preaching in the field, and defending the same by arms. I adjoin my testimony against Popery, Prelacy, Erastianism, against all profanity, and everything contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness; particularly against all usurpation and encroachments made upon Christ's right, the Prince of the kings of this earth, who alone must bear the glory of ruling his own kingdom the Church; and in particular against the absolute power affected by his usurper, that belongs to no mortal, but is the incommunicable prerogative of Jehovah, and against his Toleration flowing from his absolute power (John Howie, The Scots Worthies, 1781, p. 547).

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3, AV).

"The Bible is my creed," shouts the untutored professor. But such a principle is false. The Bible is no mans creed. It is the very truth itself (Rev. J. M. Foster, Distinctive Principles of the Covenanters, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 3).

Since nearly every man who exhibits his intention to join the church of Christ will make a claim to believe the Bible we must expect that something more than the express words of Scripture are necessary to determine with whom we agree. Terms of communion are terms of agreement in doctrine, principle, and practice (i.e. in doctrine, worship, discipline and government). They are statements and explanations of the doctrine and principles necessary for harmonious association. They are not a substitute for Scripture but rather a summary explanation of what we understand Scripture to mean. By this means we testify as to why we have a separate existence from other churches within the nation. If our terms of communion were the same as those of any other known church in our nation we would be duty bound to immediately seek to unite into one body. It is by means of explicitly stated terms of communion that we may glorify God, and honestly try to obey his commandment "to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3, emphasis added).

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10, AV).

Using terms of communion to secure harmony and co­operation within the membership of the church of Christ is an inescapable concept. Whether implicitly or explicitly, every church has terms that extend beyond the express proclamations of the Word of God. Those who are deluded into thinking that no further explanation of Scripture is necessary to establish and maintain harmony in the church will be found among those groups who allow persons of diametrically opposed faith and practice to break down all distinction between truth and error. Such pretence is satisfied with a mere worshipping together, and sitting within the same building, whether or not union of sentiment exists to any significant degree. The aim of such pretended union is finding a way to teach those with few fixed beliefs that true unity consists in learning how to "agree to disagree".

The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace (Isa. 59:8, AV).

The Reformed Presbytery comments:

The doctrine of modern forbearance among persons of opposite belief, inducing them to form a compromise in which they mutually agree to differ, and never more to mention discording tenets, leads, in its native tendency, to the suppression of the truth, and the lasting concealment of so many articles of faith, as the jarring sentiments may happen to hinge upon. And what is the amount of this, but to banish forever from the faith of the Church, a great number of precious truths contained in the Word of God, and designed by him for the spiritual comfort and edification of the people? And all this to obtain a Catholic union amongst professing Christians, at the expense of losing sacred truth. An agreement to divide, in matter of faith and practice, sounds ill with the injunction, "be perfectly joined together in the same mind" (The Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 152).

On the other hand, those who understand that an honest and explicit expression of the meaning of God's word, both stated and applied, is a necessary mean to accomplishing the end of promoting God's glory through unity of doctrine and uniformity of practice, will be found insisting that distinct and clear testimony be asserted prior to any membership or association.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42, AV).

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:14, AV).

Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing (Philippians 3:16, AV).

Our testimony is framed in statements of doctrine, argument, and application of principle to the facts of history. Doctrinal statements such as creeds and confessions exhibit and confirm our agreement in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.

John Anderson explains:

It is vain to say that the confession of a particular church is a human thing: for, candidly interpreted, it may be found to contain nothing but the undoubted truth of God's word. It is either possible for men to express these truths in their own words or it is not. If it is not possible, then his words cannot be understood: and all attempts to state, explain, illustrate or apply them, as in public preaching or writing, are vain; a supposition grossly absurd. But if it be possible for men to express the truths of scripture in their own words, then the doctrines or instructions contained in a confession, may be no other than the truths of God's word; and if they are actually no other, then a church may warrantably require of her members, and of such as desire admission to her communion, a public assent to her whole confession, nor can that assent be refused without impiety. No church has a right to require her members to receive any of the doctrines or commandments of men; but her Divine Head authorises her to exact of her members an adherence to all his truths and institutions. In this case he is saying, "he that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me" (John Anderson, Alexander and Rufus, 1862, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 36, emphases added).

David Steele comments:

Even our doctrinal standards we received from our fathers through history alone. Now, I desire the reader to see with his own mental eye, that our faith in the genuineness of these doctrinal standards rests solely on human testimony: that is, we believe on the evidence of the generations who have lived before us, that our Confessions, Covenants, etc., are true copies of those documents. But our belief so far is not saving faith ­ "the faith of God's elect." Having these documents handed down to us through history alone, then we compare them with the Bible. Can we perceive their agreement or disagreement without reasoning? No, surely. Well now, if two persons at first sight take different views of any doctrine, will they not at once enter into discussion, and their future agreement result from honest argument; yet neither their agreement in believing the symbols of their profession to be true copies; no, nor even their belief that a certain doctrine is scriptural, constitutes "the faith of God's elect;" but it does constitute that kind of faith or agreement by which they can "walk together." I hope the reader can now perceive that "the faith of God's elect" is not the condition of fellowship in the visible church, and that the visible is distinct from the invisible church. There are few delusions more prevalent and popular than the old error revived, that "assurance of grace and salvation is essential to saving faith;" and that it is, or ought to be one of the terms, or in fact the only condition of fellowship in the visible church.

The first judicial Testimony sanctioned by the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in 1761, at Ploughlandhead, Scotland, is the only one that has the formal nature and possesses the essential parts of such a document. These parts are three: history to supply facts, arguments to test the character of the facts, and doctrinal statement as the rule of trial.

Is it not the function of a witness to state facts? Yes, certainly. And what is history but a statement of facts? These may be true or false. The character and competence of the witness is to be considered. The function of the judge is to state and apply the law, and in the application of the law he is assisted by others called jurors or associates. Arguments are addressed, by advocates, to judge and jury. Now, I hope the reader will see that the greatest, the most important cause in the universe, the conflict between truth and error, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between Christ and Belial, which has been on trial since the time of Cain and Abel, cannot be conducted without history, argument and doctrinal declaration. All testimony­bearing which lacks any of these three cardinal and essential elements is not merely defective, but decidedly pretentious and unfaithful (David Steele, Reminiscences, 1883, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 202­205, emphases added).

Furthermore, Pastor Steele adds:

History is a record of past events, and to deserve the name of history the events recorded must be authentic, for "cunningly devised fables" are not history. Authentic history is of the essential nature of testimony. A witness on the stand gives a statement of facts, evidence, testimony. So true is it that not only minor matters of litigation, but even "death and life are in the power of the tongue"(Prov. 18:21). A very large portion of the Bible is historical. The first words in it announce one of the most important of historical facts: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," The great importance of this statement appears from the speculations of heathen philosophers, and self­styled scientists in our own age.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water (2 Peter 3:5, AV).

Also many of the Psalms are historical, epitomizing the previous facts recorded in the Old Testament, that these might be more indelibly impressed upon the mind and heart of God's people, and that they "might not forget his works;" for then they "forget God their Saviour" (Ps. 16:13,21).

Moreover, the origin and progress of the visible church in the world, under different dispensations of mercy, is matter of historical record. She is on earth the only immortal corporation; and since the canon of inspired Scripture closed, she has had no one infallible historian. Many, indeed, have undertaken "to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among the disciples of Christ;" but "their witness agreed not together" (Luke 1:1; Mark 14:56). Those who take as guides in searching the history of the church, Mosheim, Milner, or many others, are following false guides, whose delineations portray the features of the "scarlet lady" rather than the "Lamb's wife." In this historical fact ­ the almost universal misrepresentations of the spouse of Christ, the intelligent reader may discover the reason for a select class, whom the Lord Jesus expressly distinguishes from all others as "his witnesses," (Rev. 11:3), and the necessity for their testimony. These and these only are "children that will not lie" (Isa. 63:8); "and in their mouth is found no guile" (Rev.14:5). Hence, the necessity of historical testimony.

Again, history interprets prophecy, which is an ever increasing evidence that the Holy Scriptures are from God. How could it be known when the canon was settled but mainly by history? Or how can antichrist be identified, or the witnesses themselves but by history? For the doctrines, the worship, government and discipline of the church have all been misrepresented, counterfeited, and even the church herself (Rev. 17:18)! Thus it is apparent that the only way by which the witnesses can identify the true church is by comparing doctrine and order with the alone infallible rule, the Bible; and this comparing involves reasoning ­ argument; history and argument do, therefore, constitute the church's testimony and supply her Terms of Communion, by which she is distinguished from the "flocks of the companions."

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions (Song of Solomon 1:7, AV, emphases added)?

Reader, where did you get all the subordinate standards of your published faith, your confession, catechisms, &c.? You will probably say ­ from Westminster, England, and from Scotland; but how do you know? For about forty­six years ago, had you been a member in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, this question might have puzzled you. About that time we received new light on that matter, when the following startling statements were first published by professing Covenanters: "Even the fact of the existence of the Westminster Assembly has been for several generations a matter merely of human history. . . . Such a faith" (in the existence of the Westminster Assembly) "could not be the faith of God's elect." Again, "That such covenants were ever entered into has no other evidence than mere historical record, and consequently ought not to be made an article of the believer's faith" ­ a term of communion.

We have often said, and we now repeat, that there are two kinds of faith by which society is held together. Faith and belief are convertible terms. The kind of testimony in any case determines the kind of faith. Divine faith is founded and rests on divine testimony alone; whereas human faith needs as a foundation only human testimony. All human relations in this world are grounded on human evidence ­ testimony. Does a husband identify his wife, or the wife her husband by divine testimony? Can the parents know their child, or the child the parents by the Bible? We insist upon this point, "giving precept upon precept," simple though it be; because we know with absolute certainty that even learned divines, including many theological professors, Doctors of Divinity even, of the Covenanting name, have forsaken the covenant cause of Christ through their sinful and shameful ignorance of this matter. Our reformed ancestors thoroughly understood this point before there ever was a D.D. known among them. Why did they attach the word infallible to the first Term of Communion? Because it, and it alone, demands divine faith; all the rest requiring human faith only, because they are fallible­subordinate to the first term. Did our truly learned and godly progenitors stultify themselves by contradicting their own Confession?

All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both (Westminster Confession of Faith, 31:4).

To make this topic in theology and faithful testimony­bearing so plain that "he may run that readeth it," and to render those who prefer to continue "willingly ignorant" inexcusable, we give an illustration adapted, we hope, to the capacity of even babes in Christ: ­ Question, ­ Do you believe there is such a place as Scotland? Answer, ­ I think I do, for it is laid down on the school­atlas, and whoever made the atlas must have believed in its existence. Q. ­ Do you find Scotland named in the Bible? A. ­ No. Q. ­ Do you believe that Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill, James Renwick, and many others associated with them, lived in Scotland in the latter half of the seventeenth century? A. ­ I do, for I have both heard and read about those ministers. Q. ­ But you do not read of them in the Bible, do you? A. ­ No. Q. ­ Well, have you read of the principles they held, and how they applied their principles? A. ­ Yes, I know the principles they propagated, and also the way they applied them. Q. ­ Now, were they malefactors, as most of their countrymen charged, or were they indeed martyrs of Jesus Christ? A. ­ I believe they were martyrs. So you believe in human testimony, that there is such a place on the earth as Scotland; that Richard Cameron, &c. once lived in Scotland; that they taught certain doctrines and applied them, and for such teaching and practice they suffered a violent death, martyrdom; and yet you find nothing of this in the Bible. "Human records" alone supply these facts, from which, comparing them with the Word of God, you argue and conclude with certainty that those people were witnesses for Christ. Now, if you reject the history of their principles, practice and sufferings, how can you honestly or rationally claim identity with them? You thereby sever the only link of connection. You may be pious ­ a Christian, but not a Covenanted Presbyterian. And if your supreme end is your own salvation, you have mistaken the end of your being (Rev. 4:11), and come short of that type of patriotism which the example of the martyrs supplies. Hence ­

1. The British Covenants are manifestly historical documents.

2. The peculiarity of the National Covenant, that it was framed, sworn, and often renewed in Scotland, does not destroy its moral character, or affect the permanency of its obligation; and the same is true of the Solemn League and Covenant.

3. The very names of these covenants ­ yes, and the principles incorporated in them, which have given Christian liberty and liberty of conscience to many millions, come to us through the medium of history alone.

4. All who have adhered to these covenants have been known for centuries by historic names, and can be identified in no other way; as "Cameronians, Cargillites, Society People, Mountain­men, Covenanters," &c. And by near and necessary consequence ­

If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents (Song of Solomon 1:8, AV).

5. All who reject history from their conditions of fellowship, and yet claim kindred with the Reformed Covenanted Church, are "deceiving and being deceived." In this matter they are false witnesses; but "we wot that through ignorance they do it" (The Original Covenanter, Vol. 2, No. 12, December 1879, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 353­357).

History alone supplies the facts, and argument ascertains the validity of these historical facts by applying doctrinal principles and taking both to the law of God to pass judgment upon them (Acts of General Assembly and Judicial Testimony). By agreeing that these historical judgments are consistent and agreeable with God's holy word, we bear witness of the faithful contendings of our forefathers and exhibit the uniformity of doctrine and practice intended by the Covenant of God. This agreement in doctrine and practice, both presently and historically, forms our mutual bond of fellowship and communion and is the means by which we as brethren voluntarily and honestly resolve to walk together in peace and sit together in communion.

Can two walk together, except they be agreed (Amos 3:3, AV)?

Pastor Steele continues:

Among consistent Reformed Presbyterians, unity in the faith, and uniformity in its application, have ever been the terms of their fellowship. And this unity and uniformity are mutually pledged, not only as required by the Word of God, but as the subordinate standards of both their faith and practice, "were received by the Church of Scotland." Of course the avowed faith ­ that is, the principles of our covenant fathers, and their Christian practice ­ are known to us only by evidence of uninspired history; and while we view neither their system of faith nor their known practice as infallible, we nevertheless own their principle and engage to follow their footsteps ­ and both, if need be, with all the solemnity of the oath of God. All this is implied and carried out in covenant renovation (Pastor Steele's Printed Communications with the Editor of the Covenanter [James M. Willson], appended to Notes on the Apocalypse, in the forthcoming edition from Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing, p. 413, emphases added [or in Apostasy in the RPCNA, SWRB, 1997]).

Francis Turretin adds:

As we have said before, this is the natural right of all well­regulated societies ­ that they can separate from their own flock unfit and injurious men and the impurities, disgraces and cancers of their assembly. For the same power by which they have the right of gathering themselves together gives to them the authority to make laws and constitutions for the preservation of the body and for the expulsions of those who will not obey those laws and who, by their rebellion, could taint or corrupt the whole body. And it is a necessity of such a kind that without it no society can long exist. Now if this is granted to other societies, far more ought it to belong to the church, which is both holier and better regulated. Nor can they with whom we now argue deny this, who acknowledge (the magistrate not being a believer or neglecting his duty in restraining and punishing the wicked) that each assembly by associated discipline and mutual covenant can assume for itself a certain power of the magistrate, reduce the disorderly (ataktous) to order, drive the impious and unbelievers from itself (and cause them to keep by themselves), and provide for other things conducing to its own conservation. Now it makes little difference whether this is called a right of nature or authority flowing from Christ, since the right of nature is derived from no other source than God himself. Nay, since the church is a sacred and religious society instituted by Christ, no one can deny that she has received from Christ himself whatever power she has, as all other things. For the same one who wished to establish her in the world furnished her also with all things which are necessary for her conservation (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1696, Vol. 3, p. 296, emphases added).

Pastor Steele explains the broad purpose and progressive nature of terms of communion:

As the primary object of terms of communion in the church is to exhibit the law and covenant of God, and then agreement of persons in their apprehension of these, together with their joint and declared resolution to walk accordingly; it would appear that they are a rational expedient to reach the proposed end. Those who oppose creeds, etc., are apt to forget that the acknowledgment of the Holy Scriptures does not itself secure union of sentiment and concert in action. Besides, the witnesses of Christ, in preserving the integrity of their testimony, and their own moral identity, are necessitated to know and expose the errors and ungodliness which prevail under the name of religion. Hence they are obliged so to direct their testimony as to meet the ever­shifting forms and phases of error and immorality. And as their testimony thus progresses toward its consummation, there is a correspondent bearing given to her terms of communion. In case of defection she must ascertain from history, the footsteps of the flock whereto she attained in time past; that she may obey the divine direction, "walk by the same rule and mind the same thing" (David Steele, The Two Witnesses, 1859, Appendix Note C, appended to Notes on the Apocalypse, in the forthcoming edition from Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing, pp. 388­389, emphases added [or in SWRB's separate printing of Steele's The Two Witnesses).

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing (Philippians 3:15­16, AV).

The Reformed Presbytery comments,

This Presbytery believes firmly, that the testimony of Christ's witnesses is necessarily progressive, and that it will assuredly advance in the face of all opposition until it be "finished." There is no such anomalous document recognized among the faithful witnesses as a "Standing Testimony." All such measures of compromise they must repudiate (Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery, North Union, September 30th, 1875, cited from The Reformation Advocate, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 233).

1. Terms of communion pertain to the external communion of the visible church and not to the internal communion of the invisible church.

2. Terms of communion are intended to exhibit the law and covenant of God, so that members of Christ's visible body can determine whether or not they walk together in unity and uniformity. They are an aid to promoting, preserving and maintaining the peace and purity of the Church, and are based solely upon the infallible Word of God.

3. Terms of communion are composed of abstract doctrinal statements such as creeds and confessions, forms and directories. Though agreeable to God's word, these standards are all deduced from the Word of God and thus understood to be historical and fallible.

4. Terms of communion also include intrinsically and perpetually binding Covenants. Faith without works is dead, as is abstract doctrine without covenanted obligation. Covenants are deduced from God's word and thus are subordinate and fallible.

5. Terms of communion include facts of history judged by the Word of God according to the argument of faithful witnesses and judicatories. Historical acts of General Assemblies, governments, and notable individuals are identified and judged according to the principles of God's Word. Faithful contendings are separated from unfaithful contendings and martyrs are remembered and honoured for their "faithful works created in Christ Jesus from the foundation of the world." These Acts of General Assembly ­ judging history according to scripture ­ are all fallible and subordinate to the Word of God.

6. All of these terms are progressive and may be restated (by qualified Assemblies) to meet the ever shifting forms and phases of error and immorality. Consequently, a standing testimony is not sufficient due to the fact that it does not testify against the current sins and the errors of the times.

Now having laid this foundation, let's examine Mr. Bacon's principles according to the words of his own mouth.

Mr. Bacon's misrepresentations stem from something far more than overwrought emotion, shoddy scholarship and open lies. False doctrine begets bad manners. It is he who has adopted the popish position of infallibility and I will now proceed to prove it out of his own mouth.

To do this we must first distinguish between the bond of communion in the invisible church, viz., saving faith, and the bond of communion in the visible church, viz., doctrine, argument and history. These are not the same thing, and, like Rome, Mr. Bacon ignorantly confounds the two.

I will begin by demonstrating how 140 years ago Mr. James M. Willson [herein called the Covenanter ­ GB] employed the same sinful tactics as Mr. Bacon.

Pastor Steele says:

...the "Covenanter" made free to charge to us the "damnable heresy" of infallibility avowed by the Romish church. Take the charge in some of his select phraseology: "A great error"; "this writer's great error"; "a strange delusion"; "human history on a par with Bible truth"; "the worst form of the Popish doctrine"; "the radical and most dangerous error"; "fearful error"; "putting human compositions on a par with the Bible." These are but some of the charitable and complimentary terms and phrases by which the "Covenanter" [so­called ­ GB] "cast dust" in the eyes of the credulous, and eluded the point in argument which he could not meet. And it is to be deplored that a spirit of deep sleep has closed the eyes of many professing witnesses for a covenanted testimony. It is certain that if scripture light and sound reasoning do not prevail to awaken sinners in Zion ­ judgments must follow. Then woe to blind seers, and to those who say to the seers, see not (David Steele, The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB, 1997, p. 39).

To these outlandish charges Pastor Steele replies:

We are constrained, however, to roll off the odium attached to a claim of infallibility; and show the reader to whom this fearful error belongs, praying that he who originated it, may be brought to renounce the error and repent of former rashness. We should reflect that a real disciple may, for a time, resist the truth ­ fundamental truth in the plan of redemption, while his heart is biased by a clouded intellect, Matt. 16:21­23. Such reflection would contribute to the right direction of our charity. But to our present purpose ­

1. Distinguish between the ground of saving faith and terms of communion in the visible church. These are not identical. Rome's error results from confounding these. Her reasoning (if it may be called reasoning) is this: The Church receives none to communion but believers: ­ all beyond her pale are unbelievers ­ heretics: ­ there is no salvation but in her communion; therefore, saving faith, or the grounds of saving faith, should alone constitute the bond of fellowship in the church. In the time of the First Reformation, both in Europe and England, enthusiasts would receive none but "true believers." Luther himself was troubled ­ perplexed for about three years in dealing with this question, after he had obtained clear views of the grounds of saving faith! The "Covenanter" is entangled in the same difficulty (David Steele, The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 39, 40, emphases added).

But it will be asked,"Does not saving faith rest on divine testimony?" Of course it does. But while saving faith is the single term of communion for the invisible church, where does the Scripture teach that saving faith is a term, and especially the only term, of communion in the visible church of Christ?

Pastor Steele continues,

2. Distinguish between the visible Church and the Church invisible. Saving faith, or the ground of saving faith, is the bond of communion in the invisible church; notso in the visible church, otherwise hypocrites could not be there. The doctrines, arguments and history of the visible church are all her own deductions from Scripture. None of these has the attribute of infallibility, because the church is not infallible. An effect cannot be greater than its cause ­ the stream rise higher than its source (David Steele, The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 40, emphases added).

Mr. Bacon says,

The difference between the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton 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 (Defense Departed).

Here Mr. Bacon declares insistently how strictly he requires the officers of his church to swear to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. By this he undeniably asserts that he is willing to swear to the truth of fallible doctrine.

Next he says:

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" (Defense Departed).

Here Mr. Bacon further argues, however, that we must never swear to historical testimony because we would place it in the same category of infallibility as the papists do with their tradition. Mr. Bacon's position is this ­ we may swear to the confessions and catechisms (truth of doctrine) but we may not swear to historical testimony. Why?

David Steele, fittingly provides the devastating response:

But if we, "cannot swear to the truth of history," what is the reason? We assume that the only reason having the shadow of plausibility is this, we cannot be sure that the history is infallibly true. Well, then, if we can swear to the truth of doctrine, the reason must be, because we are sure of its infallibility. We shall not call this the "worst form of popish error," preferring that the reader pronounce upon it according to his own judgment (The Covenanter, pp. 73, 74).

Hence, the popish error of Mr. Bacon and all who follow in his footsteps is exposed. He, like James M. Willson, admits that he will swear to uphold fallible, humanly composed confessions, but he won't swear to uphold fallible, humanly composed historical testimony. While he maintains that swearing to uphold historical testimony is popish we wonder why he won't say the same for fallible, humanly composed confessions. Are confessions and historical testimony not equally fallible? Are they not both humanly composed? Are they not the doctrinal form of historical testimony? The only rational explanation for Mr. Bacon's position is this ­ that he really believes that his Confession of Faith and its humanly deduced doctrine are infallible. Thus, it is he who implicitly promotes the infallibility of human compositions. It is he who invests a similar meaning to his confession of faith that the Romanist does with his "inspired tradition of the fathers." He has condemned himself out of the words of his own mouth.

Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth (Proverbs 6:2, AV).

Pastor Steele had the same contention with James M. Willson 140 years ago, and the argument concluded with with the same result:

Now we have tested the "Covenanter's" orthodoxy here ­ on this very point ­ Popish infallibility. We have supposed that the reason "why he can swear to the truth of doctrine is, because he is sure of its infallibility." (Covenanter, Vol. 12; pp. 73­74). Now let the reader mark the reply: "Certainly, 'infallible' because Bible truth." But how shall it be ascertained that the deductions are Bible truth ­ infallible? Do we receive this infallibility by tradition from our fathers of Scotland or Westminster? No, indignantly we say, no. In the very body of the doctrinal standards which they framed, they tell us, "All synods and councils, since the apostles' times, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice," etc. Surely the Assembly at Westminster were not so impious or stupid as to claim an infallibility which they so explicitly denied to all uninspired predecessors. The Covenanter "wonders we do not see, that if we show we have a history with our Testimony, it must be infallible." Besides separating here between history and testimony, we wonder at his persistence in asserting, by plain implication, the infallibility of a human Testimony! We deny, before the world, the infallibility of our own testimony, the "Covenanter's" Testimony ­ every other uninspired testimony; and, moreover, humbly suggest to the "Covenanter" the danger of encroaching upon the divine prerogatives, and charging such impiety on his neighbours. It is amazing, amidst perpetual displays of supercilious contempt, dogmatic assertion, etc., that such palpable evidence occurs in almost every paragraph, that the "Covenanter" has yet much to learn of the nature, substance and arrangement of the terms of communion and the Testimony of the Reformed Covenanted Church (The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 40).

Evidently, Mr. Bacon also has much to learn about about the nature, substance and arrangement of the terms of communion, as well as the proper use of his tongue.

Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge (Proverbs 19:27, AV).

In Defense Departed Mr. Bacon states:

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 (Defense Departed, emphases added).

Contrary to what he asserts in Defense Departed, in his forgotten letter (fully cited in Appendix A) Mr. Bacon says that he requires the following of his officers as terms of ministerial communion:

We the undersigned Ministers and Elders of the Free Church of Scotland considering that the constitution of the said church as settled in 1843 is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, the First and Second Books of Discipline, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Claim Declaration and Protest of 1842, the Protest of 1843, the Act of Separation and Deed of Demission executed in the last mentioned year, the formula appointed to be subscribed by probationers before receiving license, and by all office bearers at the time of their admission, together with the Questions appointed to be put to the same parties at ordination and admission, and the Acts of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland prior to 1843 (Deed of Separation cited from A Manual of Practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland based on the Practice of the Church of Scotland in her Several Courts, 4th edition as revised in 1886, pp. 116­117).

Is it not abundantly evident that Mr. Bacon requires even more explicit historical testimony of his ministers, elders, deacons and probationers than the so­called Steelites? Are these not terms of ministerial communion? Are his elders and deacons not members of his congregation? How does he explain requiring historical testimony as a term of communion for his officers while excluding his congregation from the same standard (while at the same time vilifying faithful Covenanters for practicing the same principle ­ what hypocrisy!)? Dear reader, this again is a gross oversight on his part. He has again condemned himself and undone most of his own argument in Defense Departed with this one glaring inconsistency. Sadly, it gets worse.

Contradicting himself again Mr. Bacon sets forth yet another standard of communion (this time apparently for non­officers) when he says:

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 (Defence Departed).

Which is it Mr. Bacon? On the one hand you call for a simple profession of faith as the only term of communion for your members, and on the other you require your officers to swear ordination vows that include hundreds of pages of historical testimony. Let the reader note that Mr. Bacon is clearly speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Again I ask ­ Are his elders and deacons not members of his church? Do they have some special status and requirement for admittance to the Lord's Table that his members do not share? Clearly, Mr. Bacon requires historical testimony for his ministerial terms of communion, but simple profession for the rest of his members and visitors. Are the substance of the RPC's ordination vows not the same as his terms of communion? What would happen to an officer of the FPCR if they obstinately and wilfully opposed the Acts of General Assembly, FPCR Session, or any of the historical deeds cited above? What would happen if they obstinately broke any one of their ordination vows? Would they not be judged scandalous and barred from communion until such time as they repented? Therefore the substance of the RPC's ordination vows are clearly terms of communion (although Mr. Bacon doesn't seem to realize it yet).

Next, if a minister, elder or deacon could not come to the communion table in the FPCR because of obstinately speaking against one of the above mentioned articles, why would it be alright for a member of the church to do so? Does Mr. Bacon advocate one standard of faith for his elders and a different standard of faith for his members? Are there two or three different moral standards in the Reformation Presbyterian Church? It appears so. The members of the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett are not even required to swear to "endeavour" to uphold their own church standards before coming to communion. This triple standard, such as is commonly practiced in the Christian churches of our nation, makes a popish distinction between the clergy and laity. The same terms of communion ought to apply to officers and members alike.

May members of the FPCR come to the communion table if they obstinately teach premillenialism to others? How about if they teach others that singing exclusively psalms (in public worship) is wrong and singing hymns with instrumental accompaniment in public worship is right? Apparently these people can come to Mr. Bacon's communion table, since according to Mr. Bacon a simple profession of faith, like the Ethiopian eunuch, is the only term of agreement necessary. How does Mr. Bacon reconcile that with the fact that he believes that teaching such doctrines are scandalous? Will he allow those who are openly scandalous (doctrinally) to his communion table? Yes, it appears so, since he desires to be so "generous" (more "generous" than Scripture) as to allow a simple profession of faith to be his only term of communion. Furthermore, not only is there a Romish distinction made between the clergy and the laity, but in reality, visitors who come to Rowlett are judged with one standard while the congregation is judged with another. The members of the congregation of FPCR would be censured for obstinately and publicly promoting such doctrine as Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Independency, etc., while a visitor from a Baptist, Arminian or Independent church would be welcomed at the communion table based upon their simple profession of faith. Why shouldn't Arminian ministers and visitors be allowed to come to the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett if a simple profession of faith is all that is required? And if they are not welcomed to the communion table of the FPCR then we must ask ­ why not? Surely most Arminians will say as much as the Ethiopian eunuch. As you can see, false doctrine breeds confusion and tyranny in the discipline of the church. True liberty of conscience is destroyed by Popish practice lurking under the cloak of tolerance and pretended unity. Ministers have communion on one standard, members on another, and finally visitors on yet another. Each descending standard becomes more latitudinarian and more damaging to the preservation of sound doctrine and uniform practice.

Does Mr. Bacon really require the simple profession of faith of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35­37)? Does Mr. Bacon only have one simple term of Communion? His terms of communion are never explicitly stated, though I will attempt to infer what he requires from his Defense Departed. His practice so contradicts his principle that it is hard to tell what he believes. Nevertheless, it will become clear as we proceed, that Mr. Bacon's thinking is so far off that, even if we give him every benefit of the doubt, he will still be left holding to Papist principles.

Mr. Bacon's system of toleration can be deduced from the words of his own mouth when he says:

1. 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 (Defense Departed).

2. 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 (Defense Departed).

3. 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 (Defense Departed).

4. Finally Paul teaches that females who have been baptized into Christ are also communicant members of the Church (Richard Bacon, What Mean Ye By This Service, Appendix A).

5. 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 (Defense Departed).

From these quotes we can deduce that Mr. Bacon holds the following position regarding terms of communion.

1. Negatively.

a. He does not agree with the six terms of communion of the PRCE and believes our view of close communion to be in error.

2. Positively.

a. A personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ was all that Phillip required as a term of communion. "And he [the eunuch ­ GB] answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:37)

b. Though Mr. Bacon does not explicitly say which profession of Peter he was referring to, I think it is reasonable to infer that he meant Peter's simple profession of faith found in Matthew 16:16: "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

c. All who are baptized are to be admitted to communion (except of course, infants and children who have not made a profession of faith). This is significant in that (except as it applies to covenant children) Mr. Bacon is equating the qualifications necessary for both Baptism and the Lord's Supper. As the reader shall see in the following examination this is a serious error.

d. Human additions to the requirements of the Lord's Table are corrupting minds from the simplicity of Christ.

First, I would note that the Ethiopian eunuch did not receive communion, but was simply baptized in Acts 8:36­38. The reader is asked to consult the passage to see if this has anything to do with admission to the Lord's Supper. The only reason Mr. Bacon would cite this in regard to terms of communion would be because he equates the qualifications for Baptism and Communion.

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him (Acts 8:36­38, AV).

Naphtali Press has done an excellent job of republishing the classic book entitled Jus Divinum Regiminus Ecclesiastici, and therein we are furnished with an applicable commentary to undo Mr. Bacon's ill conceived notions regarding the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. One would hope that in the future Mr. Bacon's publisher would instruct him more clearly in what his republished books contain.

Besides, by the Ordinance of Baptism, we are all admitted into one body, the General visible church (1Cor. 12:12) and some were baptized into the general body that thereby were not admitted into any particular church, as the Eunuch in Acts 8 (Jus Divinum Regiminus Ecclesiastici, p. 69, Naphtali Press, emphases added).

How do terms of communion apply to someone who has yet to be admitted to a particular church? How would the Eunuch partake of communion outside of a particular church? Furthermore, Peter's profession (Matt. 16:16) is entirely unrelated to a communion service. Neither of these instances provide Mr. Bacon with any proof of his position.

Second, I would point out that, by his own words, Mr. Bacon appears to require nothing more than a simple profession of faith to admit someone to the Lord's Table. A simple profession of which "particular statements" of faith, he doesn't say. I assume that this profession would have to include at least some of so­called simple fundamentals of the faith. One would hope that he would at least enquire as to whether someone is Trinitarian, believes the Bible is God's Word, or whether the prospective communicant believes in the bodily return of our Lord and Saviour. Whatever his minimal standard is, we can by his own words (as cited above) reasonably infer that Mr. Bacon is promoting an extreme form of latitudinarian communion, and conversely that he unabashedly denounces the idea of a close communion.

John Anderson comments on this latitudinarian scheme,

In the first place, it is a sectarian communion. Its existence supposes that there are sects and parties in the catholic [i.e. universal ­ GB] church; and that the variety of men's opinions, habits and feelings, is sufficient to justify the continuance of them. Scriptural, sacramental communion [close communion ­ GB] admits of no sects; requiring all partakers of it to be one bread, one body; perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In the second place, it is an unfaithful and dishonest scheme. It is unfaithful to the Lord Jesus; for under the pretext of expressing love to him at his table, it regards the denial of some of his truths or institutions, however openly or obstinately persisted in, as a trivial matter, deserving no church censure. When the advocates for this scheme represent the truths and institutions of Christ, that are publicly opposed by corrupt churches as sectarian and local peculiarities, they are chargeable with great unfaithfulness to the Lord Christ, to these churches and to the whole catholic church. They are chargeable with attempting to heal the wound of God's people slightly, saying peace, peace while there is no peace.

Thirdly, it is a backsliding scheme. There is nothing more incumbent on a particular church than steadfastness in maintaining all the articles of Divine truth stated in her confession and testimony. But as soon as the practice obtains in any particular church of having sacramental communion with the open and obstinate opposers of any of these articles, that church, thereby, falls from her steadfastness, and is chargeable, in some measure, with apostasy (John Anderson, Alexander and Rufus, 1862, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 93­94, emphases added).

Hence, we teach that all churches which do not base their communion upon faithful and explicit terms of agreement are to be avoided and withdrawn from.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16:17, AV).

Sadly, Mr. Bacon says, "We believe their view of closed communion to be an error." Therefore, I, without any reservation maintain that Mr. Bacon is a minister who ought to be avoided and withdrawn from. His scheme is unfaithful and leads the children of God into backsliding and sectarian sin. It is an inherently schismatic view, and we will not, and cannot, countenance such ministers who are dividing and wounding the church of Jesus Christ.

Third, we in the PRCE teach that the ground of the church's profession is based upon God's word alone, though we recognize that the acts and modes of preserving and maintaining the true religion in the visible church (as to well­being) are necessarily human. Mr. Bacon, in his arrogance and ignorance, labels us a "Popes" and "Pharisees" for adhering to human constitutions that are agreeable to the Word of God. By means of our terms of communion we are simply explaining and applying our alone infallible rule of faith while neither adding nor detracting from its authority. Why does Mr. Bacon deride us for that which is unavoidable ­ especially when he clearly does the same thing?

Thomas M'Crie powerfully explains,

But while the matter, as well as the ground, of the church's profession is properly speaking divine, the acts and modes of professing and maintaining it are necessarily human. When false and corrupt views of Christianity become general, it is necessary that confessions of the truth in opposition to them be embodied in formal and written documents, which may be known and read by all men. Vox emissa perit: litera scripta manet (a voice sent forth disappears: a written letter remains). It is not enough that Christians confess their faith individually: to comply with divine commands, to answer to their character as church members, and the better to gain the ends in view, it is requisite that they make a joint and common confession. When the truths contained in the Word of God have been explicitly stated and declared, in opposition to existing errors, by the proper authority in a church, an approbation of such statements and declarations may be required as a test of soundness in the faith and Christian fidelity, without any unwarrantable imposition on conscience, or the most distant reflection on the perfection of Scripture. The same arguments which justify the use of creeds and confessions will also justify particular declarations or testimonies directed against errors and corruptions prevailing in churches which still retain scriptural formularies. Those who allow the former cannot consistently condemn the latter. It is not sufficient to entitle persons to the character of faithful witnesses of Christ, that they profess a general adherence to the Bible or a sound confession of faith, provided they refuse or decline to direct and apply these seasonably against present evils. It might as well be said that the soldier has acquitted himself well in a battle, because he had excellent armor lying in a magazine, or a sword hanging by his side, although he never brought forth the armor nor drew his sword from is scabbard. The means alluded to are the unsheathing of the sword and the wielding of the armor of the Church. So far from setting aside the authority of Scripture, they are necessary for keeping a sense of it alive on the spirits of men, and for declaring the joint views and animating the combined endeavors of those who adhere to it. By explaining and applying a rule, we do not add to it, nor do we detract from its authority (Thomas M'Crie, Unity of the Church, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp. 135­137, emphases added).

Mr. Bacon charges us with requiring implicit faith when he says:

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 20­2 it states, "the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also" (Defense Departed).

In reality, it is Mr. Bacon's latitudinarian communion that is founded in ignorance, delusion and blind obedience. Consequently, it is his pretended unity that attacks true liberty of conscience. Mr. Bacon's solution is one in which Christians are to attend the Lord's Supper based upon "simple profession" or "fundamentals" only. The distinction between what is fundamental and non­fundamental is not made in the Word of God, and thus remains vague and arbitrary in the minds of church officers. This emphasis upon the "necessary" truths of Scripture, while helpful to didactic theology, is not useful ­ indeed, it is dangerous ­ in this connection. When applied to the communion table, the tendency of this emphasis is to lead others to consider that some truths of Scripture are of little or no importance. Consequently, these "little" truths are considered too minute to be contended for, and they are relegated to the realms of indifferency and minutia. Those who promote this unscriptural emphasis constantly whine about conscientious Christians being overly concerned with so­called minutia such as singing psalms, Sabbath keeping, and instrumental music in public worship. Under the cloak of charity, forbearance and peace the so­called neutral principle of upholding the fundamentals only becomes a law by which the tolerance of all others is judged. The law of "communion by fundamentals only", not being founded upon, nor determinable by Scripture, becomes a law to be believed upon the authority of the Church only and thus a certain degree of blind obedience is required to observe it. This is the scheme proposed by Mr. Bacon and as we have observed repeatedly, his own accusations are continually recoiling upon his own head. According to his principles and to his law of "communion by fundamentals only," he should be holding communion with the Church of Rome. He makes the supposed state of an individual profession "the rule" by which one is received or rejected and denies that the communion table is fenced by the doctrinal and practical testimony of the church corporate. When a Roman Catholic comes to his communion table and professes personal faith like the Ethiopian eunuch, Mr. Bacon should, if he were to be consistent with his doctrine, receive this Roman Catholic professor. If he allows a Roman Catholic to partake individually I cannot see what would stop him from proceeding to the logical conclusion of actually partaking with the Church of Rome herself. This law of simple profession is simply a dangerous error which shifts the ground of external church communion from a corporate agreement in faith and practice to a law requiring the toleration of sectarian, individual doctrine and practice. The concealment of truth for the sake of peace is certainly as dangerous as an outright propagation of lies. Latitudinarian schemes of communion, though often coupled with the best intentions, are direct assaults upon the Christian liberty of God's people and the purity of the visible church.

Thomas M'Crie further explains:

Mournful as the divisions of the Church are, and anxious as all its genuine friends must be to see them cured, it is their duty to examine carefully the plans which may be proposed for attaining this desirable end. We must not do evil that good may come; and there are sacrifices too costly to be made for the procuring of peace with fellow Christians.

Is it necessary to remind you, that unity and peace are not always good, nor a sure and infallible mark of a true and pure church? We know that there is a church which has long boasted of her catholic unity notwithstanding all the corruptions which pollute her communion; and that within her pale the whole world called Christian once enjoyed a profound repose, and it could be said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language" (Gen. 11:6). It was a union and peace founded in ignorance, delusion, implicit faith, and a base subjection to human authority; and supported by the arts of compulsion and terror.

But there are other methods by which Christians may be deceived, and the interests of religion deeply injured, under the pretext or with the view of uniting its friends. Among these I know none more imposing, nor from which greater danger is to be apprehended in the present time, than that which proceeds on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian.

It has obtained this name because it proclaims an undue latitude in matters of religion, which persons may take to themselves or give to others. Its abettors make light of the differences which subsist among religious parties, and propose to unite them on the common principles on which they are already agreed, in the way of burying the rest in silence, or of stipulating mutual forbearance and charity with respect to everything about which they may differ in opinion or in practice.

Some plead for this on the ground that the several professions of religion differ very little from one another, and are all conducive to the happiness of mankind and the honor of God, who is pleased with the various diversified modes in which men profess their regard to him, provided only they are sincere in their professions ­ a principle of difformity which, however congenial to the system of polytheism, is utterly eversive of a religion founded on the unity of the divine nature and will, and on a revelation which teaches us what we are to believe concerning God and what duty he requires of us.

But the ground on which this plan is ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made among the articles of religion. Some of these are called essential, or fundamental, or necessary, or principal; others circumstantial, or non­fundamental, or unnecessary, or less important. The former, it is pleaded, are embraced by all true Christians; the latter form the subjects of difference among them, and ought not to enter into the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship. On this principle some of them would conciliate and unite all the Christian denominations, not excepting Papists, Arians, and Socinians; while others restrict their plan to those called evangelical, who differ mainly in their views and practice as to the worship, order, and discipline of the Church.

The distinction on which this scheme rests is itself liable to objections which appear insuperable. It is not warranted by the Word of God; and the most acute of its defenders have never been able to state it in a manner that is satisfactory, or which renders it subservient to any practical use. The Scripture, indeed, speaks of certain truths which may be called the foundation, because they are first laid, and others depend on them ­ first principles, or elementary truths, which are to be taught before others. But their priority or posteriority in point of order, in conception or instruction, does not determine the relative importance of doctrines, or their necessity in order to salvation. Far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches.

There are doctrines, too, which intrinsically, and on different accounts, may be said to have a peculiar and superior degree of importance; and this, so far as known, may properly be urged as a motive for our giving the more earnest heed to them. It is not, however, their comparative importance or utility, but their truth and the authority of him who has revealed them, which is the formal and proper reason of our receiving, professing, and maintaining them. And this applies equally to all the contents of a divine revelation. The relations of truths, especially those of a supernatural kind, are manifold and incomprehensible to us; it is not our part to pronounce a judgment on them; and if we could see them as God does, in all their extent and at once, we would behold the lesser joined to the greater, the most remote connected with the primary, by necessary and indissoluble links, and all together conspiring to form one beautiful and harmonious and indivisible whole.

Whatever God has revealed we are bound to receive and hold fast; whatever he has enjoined we are bound to obey; and the liberty which we dare not arrogate to ourselves we cannot give to others. It is not, indeed, necessary that the confession or testimony of the Church (meaning by this that which is explicitly made by her, as distinguished from her declared adherence to the whole Word of God) should contain all truths. But then any of them may come to be included in it, when opposed and endangered; and it is no sufficient reason for excluding any of them that they are less important than others, or that they have been doubted and denied by good and learned men. Whatever forbearance may be exercised to persons, "the Word of the Lord," in all its extent, "must have free course and be glorified" (cf. 2 Thess. 3:1). And any act of men ­ call it forbearance or what you will ­ which serves as a screen and protection to error or sin, and prevents it from being opposed and removed by any proper means, is contrary to the divine law, and consequently is destitute of all intrinsic force and validity.

There are truths also which are more immediately connected with salvation. But who will pretend to fix those propositions which are absolutely necessary to be known in order to salvation, by all persons, of all capacities, and in all situations; or say how low a God of grace and salvation may descend in dealing with particular individuals? Or, if we could determine this extreme point, who would say that it ought to fix the rule of our dealing with others, or the extent of a church's profession of faith? Is nothing else to be kept in view in settling articles of faith and fellowship, but what may be necessary to the salvation of sinners? Do we not owe a paramount regard to the glory of God in the highest, to the edifying of the body of Christ, to the advancing of the general interests of religion, and to the preserving, in purity, of those external means, by which, in the economy of providence and grace, the salvation of men, both initial and progressive, may be promoted to an incalculable extent from age to age?

In fine, there is reason for complaining that the criteria or marks given for determining these fundamental or necessary articles are uncertain or contradictory. It is alleged that "they are clearly taught in Scripture?" This is true of the others also. "That they are few and simple?" This is contradicted by their own attempts to state them. "That they are such as the Scripture has declared to be necessary?" Why then have we not yet been furnished with a catalogue of them? "That they are such as embraced by all true Christians?" Have they a secret tact by which they are able to discover such characters? If not, can they avoid running into a vicious circle in reasoning, by first determining who are true Christians by their embracing certain doctrines, and then determining that these doctrines are fundamental because they are embraced by persons of that description?

Many who have contributed to give currency to this scheme have been actuated, I have no doubt, by motives which are in themselves highly commendable. They wished to fix the attention of men on matters confessedly of great importance, and were anxious to put an end to the dissensions of Christians by discovering a mean point in which the views of all might harmoniously meet. But surely those who cherish a supreme regard for divine authority will be afraid of contemning or of teaching others to think lightly of anything which bears its sacred impress. They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an opinion, or an interpretation of any part of Scripture, which seems to imply in it that God has given men a power to dispense with some of his own laws. And they will be cautious of originating or countenancing plans of communion that may involve a principle of such a complexion.

These plans are more or less dangerous according to the extent to which they are carried, and the errors or abuses which may prevail among the parties which they embrace. But however limited they may be, they set an example which may be carried to any extent. So far as it is agreed and stipulated that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed or neglected, and that any error or sin shall be treated as indifferent or trivial, the essence of latitudinarianism is adopted, room is made for further advancements, and the way is prepared for ascending, through successive generations, to the very highest degree in the scale.

Another plan of communion, apparently opposite to the former, but proceeding on the same general principle, has been zealously recommended, and in some instances reduced to practice, in the present day. According to it, the several religious parties are allowed to remain separate, and to preserve their distinct constitution and peculiarities, while a species of partial or occasional communion is established among them. This plan is liable to all the objections which lie against the former, with the addition of another that is peculiar to itself. It is inconsistent and self­contradictory. It strikes against the radical principles of the unity of the Church, and confirms schism by law: while it provides that the parties shall remain separate, at the same time that it proceeds on the supposition that there is no scriptural or conscientious ground of difference between them. [Note that this is Mr. Bacon's plan of communion ­ GB]

By defending such occasional conformity, English Dissenters at a former period contradicted the reasons of their dissent from the establishment, and exposed themselves to their opponents: for where communion is lawful, it will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism. The world has for some time beheld annually the spectacle of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, and Seceders, sitting down together at the Lord's Table, and then going away and maintaining communion, through the remainder of the year, on their own separate and contradictory professions. Nay, it has of late become the practice to keep, in the same church, an open communion table for Christians of different denominations on one part of the day, and a close one for those of a particular sect on the other part of the day; while the same ministers officiate, and many individuals communicate, on both these occasions. And all this is cried up as a proof of liberality, and a mind that has freed itself from the trammels of party.

It is difficult to say which of these plans is most objectionable. By the former, that church which is most faithful, and has made the greatest progress in reformation, must always be the loser, without having the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed any benefit to her new associates. It behoves her profession and managements to yield, and be reduced to the standard of those societies which are defective and less reformed. And thus, by a process opposite to that mentioned by the Apostle, those who have built on the foundation "gold, silver, precious stones," are the persons who shall "suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:12, 15).

By the latter, all the good effects which might be expected from warrantable and necessary separations are lost, without the compensation of a rational and effective conjunction; purity of communion is endangered; persons are encouraged to continue in connection with the most corrupt churches; and a faithful testimony against errors and abuses, with all consistent attempts to have them removed or prevented, is held up to odium and reproach, as dictated by bigotry, and as tending to revive old dissensions, and to defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days of peace which are anticipated under the reign of mutual forbearance and charity (Thomas M'Crie, Unity of the Church, 1821, reprinted 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp.106­118, or free on Still Waters Revival Books web page at: http://www.swrb.com, emphases added).

As you can see, it is not necessary to quote a Covenanter to expose Mr. Bacon's latitudinarian tendencies. Those who boast of liberal forbearance are typically most liberal in spewing out severe accusations upon those who plead for true liberty of conscience. It is an undoubted maxim of our tolerant age that there are none so violently intolerant as the so­professedly tolerant man who contends with those who are steadfast in the true religion. Their harshest criticism and sharpest intolerance is reserved for those who have the courage to tell them they are wrong. It is one thing to recognize the relative importance of fundamental and non­fundamental truth, and quite another to say that the former are the only truths which the Church of Christ is bound to confess and require as a profession at her communion table. Mr. Bacon must recognize that truth is no enemy to peace and that human constitutions when agreeable to God's word are no enemy to liberty of conscience.

All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies (Psalms 25:10, AV).

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20:2).

For the sake of further discussion, let us conjecture that all Mr. Bacon requires for a term of communion is a simple profession and understanding of the Apostle's Creed. Isn't that an historical document which is both fallible and uninspired? It sets forth the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Christ in beautiful order and brevity, but is it inspired? Would Mr. Bacon actually use a fallible historical document as a term of communion? If he can use the Apostle's Creed, then all his objections against our terms of communion fall to the ground and all his accusations recoil upon his own head. This historical creed teaches things agreeable to God's Word ­ though in every case they are uninspired deductions from Scripture. This one fact ­ the fact that the Apostle's Creed is not inspired ­ completely overthrows Mr. Bacon's slanderous arguments. Where can he run? Does he plead for a deduction from Scripture even more simple than the Apostle's Creed? Whatever he chooses can be said to be uninspired and fallible, short of repeating the Scriptures word for word.

What should we ask if Mr. Bacon used the Apostle's Creed (or something like it) as his sole subordinate standard for admission to the communion table?

Is it humanly composed? Yes, man accurately deduced it from Scripture. Does it qualify as a human addition and composition? Yes it was written by man. In its present form it is of no later date than the fourth century. Is it historical and uninspired? Yes. Thus even the Apostle's Creed could not qualify as a subordinate standard for examination to come to the Lord's Supper. In fact, to be absolutely consistent with Mr. Bacon's notions, no profession of faith in the fallible uninspired words of men could be used to examine one who comes to the Lord's Supper. Is the Apostle's Creed the standard Mr. Bacon uses for his terms of communion? It is difficult to tell given his present state of confusion and inherent self­contradiction. His officers have one standard, his members another, and sadly, his visitors have yet another.

For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered (Jeremiah 10:21, AV).

Again, for Mr. Bacon to use the Apostle's Creed or any other humanly deduced creed, and then to reject our terms of communion because they are fallible is to imply that his deduction and his creed is infallible. No matter which way he turns he finds himself in the Popish camp and supping with the whore of Babylon. Whether he has failed to distinguish between the visible and the invisible church or whether he lifts his own scriptural deductions to a level of infallibility, he sits on the beast. Either way his argument is proved entirely erroneous. Mr. Bacon's error lies in the fact that he cannot seem to understand that uninspired deductions are binding when they agree with the Word of God. If history is judged correctly, and is agreeable to the truth of God's word, then it is reasonable and fair to require it as a bond of agreement and a term of communion. The same goes for any uninspired and true deduction from Scripture. Truth is a binding term of communion in whatever form it comes.

Mr. Bacon writes,

The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton 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.... They [the Steelites ­ GB] assure us that we must simply agree to it [all their subordinate standards ­ GB] 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" (Defense Departed).

Here the PRCE is slanderously portrayed as requiring implicit faith by requiring people to agree to doctrine they don't yet understand. Is this true? First accept the doctrine then understand it later ­ simply agree to it and we will explain it later ­ that is what Mr. Bacon represents as our view. We have neither required nor asked such an unlawful thing from any prospective member of our church. Membership in the PRCE is based upon a simple, voluntary, sincere, profession of faith and this is not to be confused with an examination based upon our terms of communion. Simple profession of faith precedes examination for communion and Mr. Bacon entirely confounds the long standing order of the Reformed Churches when he attempts to connect the two. New converts are brought into the schoolhouse of Christ (the visible church), to receive feeding and instruction from good shepherds who make them ready to partake worthily of the Lord's Table. These babes join the church and are baptized in their simplicity, but must have their ignorance removed so that they might be given the understanding to communicate properly, and worthily "remember and discern the body and blood of the Lord". This is done to protect them from their own ignorance and to protect the congregation from tolerating error and false doctrine around the Lord's Table.

Samuel Rutherford describes the three primary prerequisites of becoming member of the PRCE:

... though the church have not a positive certainty of the judgment of charity, that they are regenerated, so they be known

1. To be baptized.

2. That they be free of gross scandal.

3. And profess that they be willing hearers of the Doctrine of the Gospel. 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. (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, p. 251, SWRB bound photocopy reprint, 1995, emphases added).

In addition to these three prerequisites, we require that prospective members agree not to speak publicly or act scandalously contrary to the publicly professed standards of the Church, and we ask if they are willing to abide by all lawful rulings of the Session of the PRCE. This is all that is required to become a member of the PRCE ­ a simple profession of faith combined with a life free of gross scandal and an agreement to endeavour not to be publicly scandalous in the future. We have had people become members of the church within 1 or 2 weeks of their professed conversion. These babes are baptized (if necessary), brought under the oversight of the session, and nurtured by the sound preaching of the Word of God. We have never asked anyone to agree to something they do not yet understand, nor would we ever counsel someone to accept a doctrine before explaining it to them, and giving them a chance to compare our teaching to the Word of God. By representing us in this light, Mr. Bacon has shown how unacquainted he is with our profession and practice. As seems to be his practice, it appears that he would rather not be confused by the facts ­ so he simply invents his own version of the story. It is much easier to dupe the general public with contrived stories than actually deal with the reality of the situation, and Mr. Bacon has evidently chosen this shortsighted approach. His scandalous lies and distortions would have worked well had we chosen not to answer.

Notwithstanding Mr. Bacon's own lack of integrity, I would like to ask the reader another question ­ In the PRCE membership process described above (which typically takes 30 minutes or less), where did we ask someone to agree to something or to affirm something that they didn't believe? We ask for a simple profession of faith and an agreement to endeavour not to speak or act contrary to the truths of God's word as found in our subordinate standards. Where do we require implicit faith? On the contrary, we counsel all of our members not to believe anything until they have confirmed it by the alone infallible rule of faith and practice, viz., God's Word.

Francis Turretin comments,

Our opinion has nothing in common with papal tyranny because as it gives the power to command to pastors, so it ascribes to believers the power of proving all things and holding fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21); wishes to call forth the judgment of believers themselves (1 Cor. 10:15; 1 Jn. 4:1); and rejects the blind obedience of the Romanists. On account of the abuse of a thing, its use is not to be given up. Nor if the pontifical tyranny should be avoided, should we on that account pass over to the other extreme of the confusion and anarchy of the Anabaptists. Rather we must hold the mean of lawful ecclesiastical and ministerial power between these two extremes (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1696, P&R, 1997, Vol. 3, p. 281, emphases added).

When we indicate that prospective members must not speak or act contrary to the infallible Word of God and the fallible and subordinate standards of our church, we are simply requiring them to walk obediently up to their present degree of light. If someone should ignorantly, through inexperience or misunderstanding, say or do something contrary to our standards, they would be patiently taught the nature of their error from God's holy Word. The membership requirements of the PRCE are exceedingly simple, and can be attested to by any present member of our congregation. Our membership requirements are no different than that required of the Ethiopian eunuch, viz., simple profession of faith, baptism and freedom from gross scandal. Mr. Bacon, again, through failure to do his homework, has misrepresented both our belief and practice. One phone call would have kept Mr. Bacon from his folly. It seems he would rather assert his own imagination than investigate our practice.

Next, each person who makes a simple profession of faith has a right to the signs and the seals of the Covenant of Grace, viz., Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Because someone has a right to the signs and seals of the covenant doesn't mean that they are automatically qualified to enjoy those privileges. God requires all professing Christians to meet certain qualifications before they may lawfully partake of His ordinances.

To illustrate ­ In Canada (assuming that a legitimate government was ruling), each child who is born within Canadian boundaries has a right to vote. Though they "possess" the right to vote, they cannot "exercise" that right until they meet the qualifications of Canadian law. When they turn 18 years old they may then "exercise" their right. Thus a distinction is made between "possessing" a right and "exercising" a right. While little qualification is needed to possess a right, more is required for its lawful exercise.

In the visible church of Christ, membership involves different privileges for which one must be duly qualified. To hear the Word regularly preached does not automatically qualify a person for baptism, nor does being baptized automatically qualify a person to attend the Lord's Table. Each privilege of the church has its own distinctive prerequisites.

Samuel Rutherford explains,

Some be members of the visible church properly and strictly, such as are admitted to all the seals of the covenant and holy things of God. Others are less properly, or in an inferior degree, members of the visible church, such as are baptized and are ordinary hearers of the Word, but not admitted to the Lord's Supper, of old the Catechumenoi were such. As their are degrees of citizens, some having all the privileges of the city and some only right to some privileges, but not to all three. Some have right to all and are most properly in the visible church (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 268).

What Rutherford just finished saying gives us an important summary of the privileges of church membership. He explains that all members do not have equal access to the signs and seals of the covenant. Some have a right to all privileges while others have a right to exercise all privileges. I am saying the same thing as Rutherford but in slightly different terms. Though we may "possess" the right to all the privileges of the visible church, by virtue of our profession of faith, visible interest in the covenant of grace, and freedom from visible scandal, we are only entitled to "exercise" those rights after we have met the visible qualifications set down in the Word of God.

George Gillespie makes the same distinction (remote right vs. proxime [nearest ­ GB] right):

There is jus ad rem, and jus in re. There is a remote right, or right in actu primo; that is such a right, relation or habitude, as entitleth a person to such a privilege or benefit, to be enjoyed and possessed by him when he shall be capable and fit to enjoy it. Such is the right of a minor to his inheritance. Such was the right of lepers of old to their tents houses and goods, when themselves were put out of the camp, and might not (during their leprosy) actually enjoy their own habitations.... There is again a proxime right, or a right in actuo secundo, which rendereth a person actually and presently capable of that thing which he is entitled to (George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 1646, Sprinkle Publications, 1985 reprint, p. 225)

Qualification #1: Profession of Faith

When a person becomes a member of the church he does so by simple profession of faith.

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation(Westminster Confession of Faith, 25: 2).

Those born within the church have, by their birth, interest in the covenant and therefore ought to be baptized. Visible profession of faith gives a visible interest in the covenant of grace.

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 28:4)

Qualification #2: Freedom from obstinate scandal (doctrinal or practical)

Larger Catechism question #166 asks,

Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?

Answer: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

Those who "possess" a visible right to the covenant seal of Baptism may, immediately, by virtue of their (or their parents) visible, credible profession, and visible freedom from scandal (doctrinal and practical), "exercise" that right and have the sign of the covenant administered (see Appendix F for an important qualification to this statement). Any known to be wolves, apostates, or heretics do not qualify for this ordinance while those who, in their simplicity, profess "obedience to Christ," may proceed.

In Aaron's Rod Blossoming, George Gillespie summarizes his opponent's (Mr. Prynne) argument as follows:

Such as in all ages, yea, by the very Apostles themselves, have been deemed fit to receive and could not be denied, the sacrament of baptism, ought to be (being baptized and unexcommunicated, and willing to communicate) admitted to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But in all churches from Christ's time to the present, all external professors of Christ, even carnal persons, "only upon a bare external profession of faith and repentance," were deemed fit to receive, and were never denied, the sacrament of baptism (yea saith he, "we read in the very Apostle's times, that a mere slight confession of sin, and profession of the Christian faith was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized"); therefore all external professors of Christ ought to be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1985, p. 226).

Note that Mr. Prynne's argument is also Mr. Bacon's argument when he says:

Finally Paul teaches that females who have been baptized into Christ are also communicant members of the Church. (What Mean Ye By This Service, Appendix A).

Both Prynne and Bacon contend that all who are baptised (adults) are entitled and qualified, by virtue of their membership in the visible church, to attend the Lord's Supper. George Gillespie responds to Mr. Prynne, and consequently to Mr. Bacon as well:

I retort the argument thus: Such as have been deemed by the Apostles, and by all well constituted churches, unworthy to be admitted to baptism, ought also to be deemed unworthy, though baptized, to be admitted to the Lord's Table. But all known wicked and prophane livers, how able and willing soever to make confession of the true Christian faith, have been, by the Apostles and all well constituted churches, deemed unworthy to be admitted to baptism; therefore all known and wicked, &c. [ and profane livers, though baptized, ought to be deemed unworthy to come to the Lord's Table ­ GB] (George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 226, emphases added)

We see that Gillespie does not appreciate the argument of Mr. Prynne (or Mr. Bacon). If simple profession of faith does not, in and of itself, qualify a person for baptism, then it certainly does not qualify a person for the Lord's Supper. Known heretics, wolves and apostates are to be kept from both ordinances, and elders are responsible not to profane the covenant of God by promoting or participating in a promiscuous admission to either of its signs and seals.

Baptism differs from the Lord's Supper due to the fact that a participant receives baptism passively while at the table the participant eats, drinks and examines himself actively. In the forthcoming section we shall see that this difference necessitates an enlargement of the qualifications necessary for worthy participation at the Lord's Table.

Like Baptism, we "possess" the right to the Lord's Supper by virtue of a visible, credible profession of faith (giving us a visible interest in the covenant of grace) and visible freedom from scandal (both doctrinal, and practical). As in baptism, so also in the Lord's Supper, any known to be wolves, apostates, or heretics do not qualify for this ordinance. The difference in qualification between the two ordinances is due to the amount of knowledge required to accomplish the necessary duties associated with worthily partaking of the bread and wine. The key difference between these two ordinances is one of positive knowledge. To exercise our right to attend the Lord's Table we must meet the necessary qualifications as they are set down in Scripture and summarized in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

In addition to requiring all the qualifications of Baptism, the additional qualifications necessary to attend the Lord's Table can be broken into positive and negative categories.

Qualification 1. Age and ability to examine themselves.

We are explicitly taught in the Larger Catechism how God's two sacraments differ.

Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ?

Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves (emphases added).

Age

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged (1 Corinthians 11:28, 31, AV).

Those who are not old enough to examine and judge themselves obviously cannot meet the knowledge requirements necessary to worthily partake. If, as our Larger Catechism states, only such as are of years and ability to examine themselves may partake of the Lord's Supper, then more than simple profession is required. Very young children may make a simple, visible, and credible profession of faith while remaining unable sufficiently to examine themselves or to discern the Lord's body to any significant degree. God may reveal himself to a child well before he can articulate an accurate understanding of the true religion. Until he is able to visibly demonstrate his understanding of the truth, no mere man ought to presume what lies in his thoughts and intentions. This argument alone should eliminate the foolish practice of the paedo­communion camp. Those who contend for a simple profession, if they were consistent (God forbid), should be serving the bread and wine to any child who has made a simple profession of faith. Sadly, there are many unfaithful church officers foolish enough to abuse their children by admitting them to this ordinance based upon a consistent application of this deceptive principle. Faithful officers, who take their Confession seriously would, of course, more carefully attend to their duty.

George Gillespie mentions the three necessary categories (profession, knowledge and practice) to be examined by the elders of the church.

... and that they who are the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, ought to admit none to this sacrament except such as are qualified and fit (so far as can be judged by their profession, knowledge and practice, observed and examined by the eldership, according to the rules of the word, no human court being infallible) to have part and portion in the communion of saints, and to receive the seals of the covenant of grace (George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 236, emphases added).

Gillespie adds,

The eldership judgeth of words and works, professions and practices. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 227).

Unless somebody desires to assert that an infant can be judged by his profession, knowledge and practice, prior to being able to speak or understand human language, we can be assured that Mr. Gillespie and the writers of our church standards were not proponents of paedocommunion. Additionally, unless the reader wishes to equate Mr. Bacon's direction to judge by simple profession of the Ethiopian eunuch with Gillespie's direction to judge by profession, knowledge and practice, we can rest assured that Mr. Bacon is not teaching the same thing as Mr. Gillespie.