Watch this Space...

Sorry for the prolonged silence. It is my intent to get back to regular blog entries with the start of the New Year. I'm just not sure I'll go back to the book I was using.

Merry Christmas, everyone. "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given. And the government will be upon His shoulders. And His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

Unexpected Summer Hiatus

Apologies to all who may be wondering what happened here. There has been an unusual concentration of events--mostly a serious uptick in busyness at work--that have led me to put blogging aside for the moment. But I hope to pick things back up in August. Please check back soon.

The Joys of the Generous Soul

Writers of a devotional bent often speak rapturously in anticipation of the delights of heaven, chief of which is generally given to be the beatific vision--the incomprehensible joy of seeing the unveiled glory of God, which no mortal man can now bear and from which even the seraphs shade their eyes (Isaiah 6). Contemplation of this joy is part of the "foretaste of glory divine." In this section, Scougal meditates upon what he believes is the next-best thing about heaven: "That ardent charity and affection wherewith blessed souls embrace one another." Even in this life, the God-saturated soul enjoys a spiritual pleasure attendant upon the godly grace with which he regards his fellow human beings. He participates in the grace with which God treats the human race; just as it delights God to be gracious, so it delights his child who has learned to treat others with grace.

Universal Charity and Love

Apologies for the brief hiatus in blogging. It's been a busy week (still going, too).

Scougal goes slightly off the rails at this juncture in his essay. While rightly extolling a consistent application of our Lord's injunction to love our neighbor as ourselves, he almost sings rhapsodically of the regard the world will have for the Christian who exhibits such a spirit.

Yet, did not Jesus perfectly practice love for others? And what was his reception from the world? Certainly not that he was "reverenced and admired, and accounted the darling of mankind." Far from it--he was accursed, hung on a tree. I believe the Christian who follows faithfully in the way of Christ will not receive the world's plaudits. But that is not his purpose anyway. His purpose is obedience to Christ's commands and his reward will not be earthly in nature but heavenly.

Devotion to God Is Not a Chore...

...for the one who possesses authentic love for God. The man who is truly in love delights to spend his time with his beloved and will do all things necessary to that end. The man in love will go to great lengths to please the one he loves--just think how some (admittedly, not all) husbands go well out of their way to compose delightful surprises for their wives on significant dates such as anniversaries. How much more does the soul enraptured by God delight in the exercises of worship, prayer, devotion? How jealously does he guard the time set aside for these things, and how impatiently he counts the minutes until the next time of sweetness!

To my shame, I acknowledge that I am a very long way from this. Some of it may stem from my own rather dispassionate nature. But how I long to be filled with a passion for God.

Die to Self, Live to God

"My Beloved is mine. I account all His interest my own, and I am His. I am content to be anything for Him, and do not care for anything for myself but that I may serve Him."

When we give up all earthly cares and focus entirely on God, what we give up pales in comparison with what we gain. In God is all joy, all contentment, all pleasure, all rest.

A Love Without Pain

The one who loves another creature shares the other's sorrows as well as joys. When the one you love is in pain, or despairing, or in trouble, you suffer along with your love. It is not so with God. When you have set your affections upon God you share instead in his infinite joy and pleasure. There is no pain, despair, or trouble in God as God. Love for God can only lift you up.

A Love That's Never Absent

Scougal meditates on the heartache that often afflicts us when we are separated from our loved ones. How magnificent to realize, then, that we can never be separated (Romans 8:39) from the love of God when we are in Christ Jesus. God is always with us (Matthew 28:20).

Our Hearts Are Restless...

Only in love of God can the human heart find final contentment, for the human heart was made to love God. Corrupted as it is by sin and try as it might to find a substitute, only God can give it the rest Augustine and Scougal both extoll. To set this love on any lower object, which inherently is not worthy of it, is to court dissatisfaction and ultimately misery. God's love delivers us from a host of evils.

A Worthy Object for Our Love

It has been observed that the object upon which one sets his love will lend its own character to the one loving. If I love base things, I become base myself. Accordingly, if I love God in Christ, who is perfection itself and has all qualities in their most excellent and all-encompassing ways, then I myself am elevated, even made into the likeness of Christ.

The Excellency and Advantage of Religion

And now, my dear friend, having discovered the nature of true religion, before I proceed any further I will not, perhaps, be unfit to fix our meditations a little on the excellency and advantages of it, so that we may be excited to a more vigorous and diligent prosecution of those methods whereby we may attain so great a felicity. But, alas! What words shall we find to express that inward satisfaction, those hidden pleasures which can never be rightly understood except by those holy souls who feel them? "A stranger intemeddleth not with their joy" (Proverbs 14:10). Holiness is the right temper, the vigorous and healthful constitution of the soul. Its faculties had formerly been enfeebled and disordered so that they could not exercise their natural functions; it had wearied itself with endless tossings and rollings, and was never able to find any rest. Now, that distemper being removed, it feels itself well; there is a due harmony in its faculties, and a sprightly vigor possesses every part. The understanding can discern what is good, and the will can cleave unto it; the affections are not tied to the motions of sense and the influence of external objects, but they are stirred by more divine impressions and touched by a sense of visible things.

In other words, Scougal considers that true religion, alleviating the regenerate soul of the limitations of the natural man, affords distinct advantages that enhance the use and function of human qualities. This is an interesting idea; I wonder if anyone else has found this to be true?

A Prayer for New Eyes

Infinite and eternal Majesty, Author and Fountain of being and blessedness, how little do we poor, sinful creatures know of Thee, or the way to serve and please Thee! We talk of religion, and pretend unto it, but, alas, how few there are who know and consider what it means! How easily we mistake the affections of our nature, and the issues of self-love, for those divine graces which alone can render us acceptable in Thy sight!

"...As we look not to the things that are seen but the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (2 Corinthians 4:18).

Jesus' Humility

Scougal consciously avoids (although he does mention it) discussion of the well-known "kenotic" passage in Philippians 2. Instead, he focuses on how unassuming Jesus was in his earthly life. In so far as his words and actions tell us, he did not give a second thought to claiming any perogatives appertaining to his divine nature. Knowing that the lawyer thought of him as only a man but called him "good teacher," he pointedly corrected the man as to the reality of goodness. How readily he laid aside his rightful claims to dignity and honor. He submitted, not just to parents but to abuse, revilements, indignities, and injustices. And he never used his powers for self-aggrandizement. He came to serve, not to be served.

Jesus' Holiness

"Which of you accuses me of sin?" Only one man in all human history could ask that question and expect none to reply in the affirmative. His conduct was perfect, not just from the perspective of other men but from the Father himself, he who declared that he was "well pleased" with his Son. He really was the spotless, blemish-less Lamb of God. Scougal praises him for his abstinence--the many ways in which he denied himself earthly pleasures that he allowed others and certainly had the power to produce for himself, yet he was content with very little. In his earthly life he was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief; when he returns, however, I expect there will be great gladness and much joy and laughter at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Jesus' Love for His Neighbor

Never did any man treat his fellow human beings with such perfect love. At all times he spoke and behaved in a manner intended to do them the greatest good. And of course, this was not just the way he dealt with his friends; his enemies received kindness upon kindness, and even in harsh rebuke he had only their ultimate good, desiring to turn them back from their sins. "Greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends." And so he did.

Jesus' Prayer Life

Another instance of his love to God was his delight in conversing with him by prayer, which made him frequently retire from the world, and, with the greatest devotion and pleasure, spend whole nights in that heavenly exercise, though he had no sins to confess, and but few secular interests to pray for. Alas, these are almost the only things that are likely to drive us to our devotions! Nay, we may say that his whole life was a kind of prayer, a constant course of communion with God. If the sacrifice was not always an offering, yet the fire was still kept alive. Nor was the blessed Jesus ever surprised with that dullness or tepidity of spirit which we must, many times wrestle with before we can be fit for the exercise of devotion.

Things one rarely thinks about--it is obvious from the gospel accounts that our Lord spent a lot of time in prayer, yet it never occurred to me to think how different his prayers would have been from my own, not just in quantity but in quality. As Scougal points out very effectively, he had no sins to confess. There was never any reconciliation to accomplish. His physical needs were few; he was evidently very content in the circumstances in which he passed his life. What rapt communion, then, he must have enjoyed. Hours in prayer, and all in intimate fellowship with the Father. It is a small glimpse into that world we will someday realize.

The Son as the Exemplar of Divine Life

No man lived his life in more accord with the Father than did Jesus, whose very meat and drink was to do his Father's will. Every conscious moment was centered on that relationship. This was a man who literally could give up eating and drinking for incredible amounts of time because he fed on God. Even his darkest days showed his firm commitment to obeying the Father's will. He was not just content to do that will but desirous of doing that will.

Over the next several days we will look at various aspects of the divine life in Jesus.

Faith Shown by Deeds

Mere words are insufficient to express the divine life within the Christian. That life has its best expression in one's way of life, especially in private. Our best example in this is the Lord himself. He always demonstrated in his life the truth of his words.

"The Very Foundation of Heaven Laid in the Soul"

We have discussed Scougal's four branches of the divine life: Love to God, charity to men, purity (holiness), and humility. The man who realizes all of these may rest content in God's promises and the assurance of God's work within him. Scougal quotes another as saying, "I would rather see the real impressions of a God-like nature upon my own soul than have a vision from heaven, or an angel sent to tell me that my name was enrolled in the book of life."

The Fourth Branch: Humility

A proper (and accurate) estimation of one's place in the Grand Scheme--neither too low or too high, as the apostle admonished--befits a Christian. We accept responsibility for all the many ways in which we fall short of the mark and we gratefully acknowledge God as the source of all good things, even the very sustainment of our lives from breath to breath. Humility puts God in his proper place (the sovereign Lord of all) and us in ours. Similarly, we learn to hold lightly the esteem of the world.

The Third Branch: Purity

By "purity," I understand a due abstractedness from the body, and mastery over the inferior appetites, or such a temper and disposition of mind as makes a man despise and abstain from all pleasures and delights of sense or fancy which are sinful in themselves, or tend to extinguish or lessen our relish of more divine and intellectual pleasures. This also infers a resolution to undergo all those hardships he may meet with in the performance of his duty. So that not only chastity and temperance, but also Christian courage and magnanimity may come under this heading.

Well, yes, to a certain degree. But Scougal here adopts what sounds to me to be almost a gnostic division of the physical and spiritual. Humans are certainly prone to pursuit of sinful satisfaction of physical appetites, yet there is an appropriate way to appease those appetites, which were after all created by God. And there are sinful ways to relish intellectual pleasures, too. So rather than striving in an ascetic sense to discipline the body, we should look to discipline our whole selves toward holiness, while acknowledging the due and proper enjoyment of the gifts God has given.

The Second Branch: Charity to Man

A soul thus possessed with divine love must be enlarged towards all mankind in a sincere and unbounded affection because of the relation they have to God, being His creatures, and having something of His image stamped upon them. And this is that "charity" I named as the second branch of religion, and under which all the parts of justice, all the duties we owe to our neighbor, are eminently comprehended; for he who truly loves all the world will be so far from wronging or injuring any person that he will resent any evil that befalls others as if it happened to himself.

Love for neighbor flows out of love for God. As we learn to recognize each other as bearers of God's image, we love that which inheres in each other. Here loving the world is not meant in the same capacity as found in John's epistles--there the apostle commands us not to love the world, but he means the world system and its values that are opposed to God--but loving all the people who make up the nations, tongues, and tribes. And if we truly love our neighbor as ourselves we will even come to see such an identification that we share in their sufferings.

The First Branch: Love of God

"The love of God" is a delightful and affectionate sense of the divine perfections, which makes the soul resign and sacrifice itself wholly unto Him, desiring above all things to please Him, and delighting in nothing so much as in fellowship and communion with Him, being ready to do or suffer anything for His sake or at His pleasure. Though this affection may have its first rise from the favors and mercies of God towards ourselves, yet in its growth and progress it transcends such particular considerations and grounds itself on His infinite goodness manifested in all the works of creation and providence.

"We love because he first loved us" is Scripture's explanation for how incorrigibly rebellious creatures should discover a love for their Lord and master. It does not arise from within us unaided, but once God has remade us our new appreciation for his beauty and goodness and loveliness fuels its growth. The goal of Christian affection toward God is to make him the center and end of all our wants. If this sounds like falling in love, perhaps on one level it is. But only in this case is the object of our love as truly perfect and delightful and worthy as we otherwise pretend the human objects of our love are. The Bride is made for the Bridegroom.

Explaining the Divine Life

This next section is long and weighty, deserving of more careful consideration than can be given in just one day's post. I will therefore introduce Scougal's general theme and then look at what he has to say in greater detail over the next several posts.

Just as the natural or "animal" life consists chiefly in the outworking of self-love, the divine life is "a universal and unbounded affection," i.e., not centered on the self but other-directed, and most importantly directed toward God. Scougal likens it to a tree: The root is faith and the branches are "love to God, charity to man, purity, and humility." Here he does not have in mind a generic faith, but a specific faith in Jesus Christ. We'll spend the next few days examining the branches more closely.

This concept of faith as other-directed love seems to me to be entirely biblical, for our Lord taught that the two great commandments entail love of God and love of neighbor. On the other hand, it may run afoul of Paul's famous summary at the end of 1 Corinthians 13 where he appears to exalt love over faith. Perhaps we shall see that "faith, hope, and charity" are not to be thought of as separate things but as discernable facets of the life of Christ in the heart of man.

Outworkings of the Natural Life

Men who are ruled solely by the natural life exhibit a range of personalities and behaviors. Scougal looks to providence to explain this, observing that it is felicitous that natural men are so very different or else self-love might prove ruinous to society. Indeed, in some such persons self-love expresses itself as great interest in matters of religion--"The glorious things that are spoken of heaven may make even a carnal heart be in love with it," although such love is restricted to the trappings of glory and not to the spiritual realities at the center. In this way, Scougal tries to account for the "splendid sins" of mankind.

I am not convinced. I think Scougal bends over backwards to credit relative good found within natural men. From a strictly human perspective this might be desirable--even the most depraved sinner contains the image of God within him; that "divine spark" sometimes works itself out in surprising ways. But it is this marred yet resident image of God that should get the credit for the relative good that the natural man does, not the natural man himself.

On the Natural Life

Prior to embarking upon more exploration of the divine life, Scougal considers what he calls not so much a contrast as perhaps a subtext: the natural life, "our inclination and propensity toward those things which are pleasing and acceptable to nature, or self love issuing forth." He does oppose this natural life to faith and bases it in physicality. Interestingly, he does not equate this natural life with sin or "the natural man" of which Paul speaks in his epistles; instead, he claims it is the guiding principle of animals, which, when it is in control of a man, makes the man without faith wicked. When faith reigns over this natural life, the man is righteous.

I must confess that Scougal makes me nervous here. I fear he may be mistaken to draw a likeness between the life of animals and the life of the man without Christ. But I'll let him defend his position going forward.

A Resemblance of the Divine Perfections

As promised, Scougal proposes to enlarge on his definition of religion as divine life. He believes he can call it this not just because God is its source and author, or because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in each believer--accurate though these are. Even more, religion is "a real participation in His nature...a beam of the eternal light, a drop of that infinite goodness." As we proceed, he will expand on these statements. Some of the language employed here reminds me of gnostic statements (emenations, drops of divinity), but I have confidence that Scougal will acquit himself of any heretical tendencies if we hear him out.

The Christian's Meat and Drink

Scougal then reflects on the inner motivations of this divine life. Why does the true Christian bear love for God? Some who criticize Christians think that they are motivated by fear of judgment, constantly looking over their shoulders for the advance of a vengeful God who seeks to catch them putting a foot out of place. But Scougal observes this is precisely what characterizes "forced and artificial religion," a heavy and lethargic thing that barely shifts itself to do what it thinks it must, rather than true religion that derives its motivations from love of and gratitude toward God. "He who has given himself entirely unto God will never think he does too much for Him."

How Religion Is Like Life

Scougal likens religion to life by observing that the true version of the former has "permanence and stability." He intends to contrast those whose profession of religion is characterized by explosive fits rather than a calm steadiness and draws a colorful comparison to the jerky movements of recently decapitated bodies!

He observes, "this divine life does not always continue in the same strength and vigor, but many times suffers sad decays; and holy men find greater difficulty in resisting temptations, and less alacrity in the performance of their duties. Yet it is not quite extinguished, nor are they abandoned to the power of those corrupt affections which sway and overrule the rest of the world." This puts me in mind of the Confession's teaching on perseverance. Having real saving faith does not exempt the Christian from times of spiritual reversal; there are often valleys in between the peaks. But we retain confidence that He who began a good work in us will finish it in the day of Christ Jesus.

Defining Religion

[And before we get much further, I should point out that for Scougal "religion" means Christianity.]

"...[T]rue religion is a union of the soul with God, a real participation in the divine nature, the very image of God drawn upon the soul. In the apostle's words, it is 'Christ formed in you.'" Scougal terms religion "a divine life" and will spend much of the letter fleshing out that phrase.

The crux of Christian faith is the Christian's union with Christ. Our identification with him in his death and resurrection is what grants us every spiritual benefit; the indwelling of Christ's Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, the seal of our salvation and the promise of our glorification.

I will be interested to see if Scougal elaborates on his idea that true religion is "a real participation in the divine nature." Undoubtedly he draws upon Peter's words in his first epistle but somehow I doubt he will come to the same conclusion as the Orthodox have concerning the divinization of the believer. We shall see.

Misunderstanding Religion

Prior to discussing the nature of true religion, Scougal comments on some common erroneous takes on religion.

True, authentic religion is not:

1. Bare intellectual assent to a creed.

2. Keeping a set of behavioral rules.

3. Emotionalism.

Scougal states that many mistake a part or aspect of religion, especially in an exaggerated form, for the whole. That religion does involve right belief (orthodoxy), right practice (orthopraxy), and emotional investment cannot be denied. But we rightly hold these things together, in balance. He also warns against our tendency to "baptize" our sins by attempting to create Christian justifications for them.

Scougal's Occasion for Writing

Scougal tells his friend (remember, this was written as a letter) that his purpose in writing is to advance "virtue and holiness." A life of Christian sanctity was the goal of every Puritan; their sermons and books are full of exhortations, encouragements, and advice regarding personal holiness. They took to heart Peter's admonition to holiness based on the holiness of God--as he is holy, so Christians are called to holiness. R. C. Sproul has recognized that a problem afflicting the contemporary church in the West is the lackadaisical attitude many professing Christians have toward sin. They simply don't dwell on the holiness of God and God's command to be like him, or upon the repeated exhortation in the Scriptures to imitate Christ. If Scougal can help us in this regard, he will have done us a great service.

Introduction to Henry Scougal and "The Life of God in the Soul of Man"

Chances are you've never heard of Henry Scougal. But he may have been one of the most influential Christian writers of the past 400 years when you consider that George Whitfield and the Wesley brothers credited the book we are about to explore as having revealed to them the nature of true religion.

In his short life (1650-1678, just 28 when he died of tuberculosis) Scougal accomplished much of lasting worth. He was born into a family of Scottish pastors and was destined for the church. A brilliant and hard-working student, he entered college at age 15 and was named a professor of philosophy at just 19. Ordained to the ministry in 1672 he took a pastorate in which he served briefly with distinction before being recalled to the university at Aberdeen as a professor of divinity. There he served out the remainder of his days.

His best-known work, The Life of God in the Soul of Man, was originally a (long) letter to a friend. Another friend was so taken with it that he persuaded Scougal to allow it to be published, which Scougal did only reluctantly, insisting that it be an anonymous work. Its reception undoubtedly surprised him. The book has gone through many editions subsequently; John Wesley made an abridgement that was printed seven times in 66 years. It is composed of three principal sections: The nature of true religion; the excellency and advantage of religion; and the practical elements of religion.

It is my prayer that readers will find the forthcoming journey leads them to new appreciation for the Christ whom Scougal served so well.

Tomorrow: We begin to listen to Henry Scougal.

David Dickson, 1583-1662

David Dickson was another of the great Scots. Educated at Glasgow, he accepted a pastoral position in Irvine for over twenty years and was very active in the affairs of the Scottish church during the turbulent times leading up to the English Civil War. He held academic appointments at Glasgow and Edinburgh. In his final illness, he observed, "I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."

There are few better summaries of the Puritan approach to Christianity.

This short series of Puritan biographical vignettes has come to its conclusion. It had been my intention to start blogging through one of the standard histories of the Christian church, a project I began in analog form some years ago. However, this effort will be delayed while I try to secure permission from the publisher. In its place, I'd like to blog through Henry Scougal's The Life of God in the Soul of Man, a Puritan devotional work that has been tremendously influential in the lives of some of the great Christians of the past, including one of my personal heroes, George Whitfield. God willing, that project will commence tomorrow.

John Lightfoot, 1602-1675

John Lightfoot was another Cambridge-educated man. He had a reputation for oratory. His early career was chiefly scholarly and pastoral in several assignments. As a delegate to the Assembly he kept a journal; this has become a valuable historical record for the first year or so of the Assembly's meetings in which he participated with great vigor and influence, often taking a position distinctly in the minority (he was Erastian in perspective). In his later career he wrote numerous commentaries on the Bible and became something of a Hebrew scholar.

Tomorrow: David Dickson, and a look at future directions.

Samuel Rutherford, 1600-1661

Samuel Rutherford was another Scotsman, perhaps the most important Scottish Calvinist of the era. His early career was pastoral in rural Scotland where he gained a reputation as a great preacher despite a lack of good speaking skills. Scotland sent him to the Assembly, where he exerted a tremendous influence, especially on the Shorter Catechism. His best-known work was called Lex Rex, or The Law, the King, an argument for limited government that criticized contemporary notions of the divine right of kings. This work later had a monumental impact on the formation of American government.

Tomorrow: John Lightfoot.

Robert Baillie, 1599-1662

Robert Baillie was one of the few (but very influential) Scottish Presbyterian representatives to the Assembly. In his early career he was caught up in the general Scottish resistance to the forcible establishment of High Anglicanism by Charles I and Archbishop Laud. He traveled with the Scottish army as a regimental preacher. When the time came he took up his responsibilities in the Assembly and subsequently became something of a diplomat. After the Stuart Restoration he could have had a bishopric, but was steadfast in his resistance to this form of church government, observing that, "I do not find in the New Testament that Christ has any lords in his house."

Tomorrow: Samuel Rutherford.

Thomas Goodwin, 1600-1680

Thomas Goodwin hailed from Norfolk, a bastion of Puritan resistance to persecution by the English crown. From early life he was spiritually sensitive and intellectually bright. At the age of twelve, he went up to Cambridge where he quickly encountered solid Puritans in the form of his tutors. Following a profound conversion experience at age 20 he ceased his dalliance with rhetorical style and Arminianism and became an earnest and dedicated preacher of biblical truth. His resistance to William Laud's attempts to stamp out Puritanism in the Church of England led to exile in the Netherlands, from which he was recalled by Parliament in 1641 and quickly rose to prominence in the Assembly, which he addressed nearly 360 times in the space of 17 months. After leaving his work at Westminster he became president of Magdalen College in Oxford and did much good there. His final years were spent as an Independent Church preacher in London.

Tomorrow: Robert Baillie.

William Twisse, 1575-1646

(Parenthetically, I note there were over 150 representatives in the Westminster Assembly, so the short series that follows can highlight just a very select handful of some of the more influential figures.)

William Twisse was unusual in that he was an Oxford man rather than part of the Cambridge group mentioned earlier this week. A very bright and learned man, he caught the attention of King James I, who appointed him chaplain to the Princess Elizabeth and sent him to Germany with her. After a short stay there, he was recalled to England to take up pastoral duties as the vicar of Newbury where he was able to further his scholarship. Despite his relationship with the royal family, he refused to obey James' edict that the Book of Sports be read in all churches (this was part of James' campaign against Sabbath observance). His standing and regard among the English Puritans can be seen in his appointment to be Prolocutor (presiding officer) of the Assembly in 1643, although the office did not suit his retiring personality and it taxed his health. After fainting in the pulpit in March 1645 his health went into a long decline and he died in July of the following year. His last words were, "Now, at length, I shall have leisure to follow my studies to all eternity."

Tomorrow: Thomas Goodwin.

The Origins of Puritanism in England V

Wrapping up our little excursion into the history of the development of English Puritanism...

That the church needed reform was not questioned by the Puritans. What was less agreed-upon was the structure of that reform. Some preferred to retain the episcopal structure of Anglicanism; many others were of presbyterian or congregational or even independent bent. A small minority was Erastian (the system that teaches the state should govern the church). A discussion of church government started at Westminster but as most of the representatives were presbyterian by conviction they carried the day.

Tomorrow: Meet some Puritans!

The Origins of Puritanism in England IV

Cambridge became the center of "low church" Calvinist Anglicans. The university had a connection to continental Reformed figures such as Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli; Henry Bullinger of Zurich, the successor to Zwingli there, kept up an extensive correspondence with the Cambridge faculty. William Perkins (1558-1602) became the chief Cambridge Calvinist. He was something of a father-mentor to the later Puritans; while not often recognized in his own right, his influence on succeeding generations was immense. Cambridge Calvinism was characterized by its preference for logic and orderliness in theology and for a desire to apply theological principles practically to the everyday life of the Christian. Thus, it produced a whole new, integrated outlook on the Christian life.

Tomorrow: Differences over church government.

The Origins of Puritanism in England III

Following Mary's death her half-sister Elizabeth became queen. With Elizabeth came a period of greater political stablility but a resistance to thorough-going reform of the church. She was content with just a certain amount of Protestantism, enough to suit her own needs yet keep the church tightly bound to the crown. Parliament and the Anglican bishops passed the Act of Uniformity in 1559, the year after she became queen. This law stipulated that High Church Anglicanism was the only official church in England and that all others were suppressed. Everyone was required to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer along with all the other practices of the state church. The idea was to prevent the more extensive reform seen in Geneva and Edinburgh; the result was a church that continued to resemble Roman Catholicism in most of its points. Within the Church of England there developed a body of Christians that sought to "purify" it of all traces of Romanism and bring about a greater sanctity among the people--hence the name "Puritan." Through most of Elizabeth's reign the Puritans grew as an opposition party, particularly in defense of religious and civil liberties upon which the state increasingly encroached.

Tomorrow: Cambridge as the epicenter of Puritanism.

The Origins of Puritanism in England II

When Edward VI died childless, his thoroughly Roman Catholic sister Mary ascended to the throne (after a brief interregnum involving a most unfortunate young woman named Jane Gray). Along with her Spanish husband Philip she sought to return England to the Roman fold and used some rather drastic means to accomplish this. Over three hundred Protestant leaders, mostly Calvinists, were killed. Those whom she did not kill, some eight hundred strong, were driven out of England, often finding a safe and inviting haven in Calvin's Geneva, where they were exposed to a higher form of Christian teaching than they had previously known. Many of these refugees, such as John Knox, later returned to England and Scotland after Mary's death. They formed the core of a Calvinistic reforming force that sought to duplicate Geneva on their home soil. As it happened, the Scots took to this more quickly and enthusiastically than the English.

Tomorrow: The rise of Puritanism under Elizabeth I.

The Origins of Puritanism in England I

The early years of the Reformation in England were centered around the policies of Henry VIII. Although his motivation was chiefly that of dynastic succession, Henry inaugurated the official reformation of the English church. His contribution was to establish the English sovereign as the head of the church in place of the pope. He had no interest in doctrinal reform--he was to remain Roman Catholic in belief and practice to the end of his life and fought bitterly against what he considered Luther's "innovations." But inevitably his split from Roman headship brought a more reforming spirit into the English church leadership, a trend that accelerated under the short reign of the more conscientiously Protestant Edward VI and his advisors.

Tomorrow: Mary Tudor.

What Is a Puritan?

The Baltimore journalist and "professional curmudgeon" H. L. Mencken famously and derisively defined Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." While amusing in its way, this definition is wide of the mark.

The popular mis-conception of Puritans is that they were a dour lot who never had any fun, never wanted anyone else to have any fun, and dressed in dowdy dark colors. They were probably constipated, too. In the contemporary imagination, which probably borrows from its ideas of Christian fundamentalism and conflates the two, the Puritans were also anti-intellectual pietists.

All of these ideas are woefully wrong. Certainly the modern hedonistic materialistic pagan American would find he has little in common with the Puritans. They were the leading intellectuals of the late 16th and early 17th century in Great Britain and the godliest Christians in the land for several generations. They were nearly all Calvinists (of some degree) by theological persuasion, but of varying opinions on matters of church government, except that they were almost all opposed to episcopacy, especially as that polity was expressed in Roman Catholicism. The literature they have left behind indicates that they had a vibrant and loving home life and excellent senses of humor.

And they were natty dressers, too.

Tomorrow: The origins of Puritanism in England--the Henrician Reformation.

Of the Last Judgment, XXXIII:3

As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.

Of that day and hour no one knows but the Father only (Matthew 24:36, paraphrased). That this day is coming is certain--our Lord has assured us of this and we may rely upon it. Furthermore, knowing this provides a source of comfort and consolation. No matter how grim circumstances may appear to us we may certainly lean upon this precious truth. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the timing (not, again, of the actuality) of the coming judgment affords us no opportunity to be "at ease in Zion," or worse indulging the sinful nature under the pretense that judgment is still far off. At all times and in all ways it behooves the Christian to be prepared to enter into the presence of his divine glory. All the more does it behoove the unbeliever to examine himself in light of the many truths we have discussed these eight months. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess the lordship of Jesus Christ; whether one does such with joy or with grief depends upon the decisions that are made now. What say you of Christ? Whose Son is he?

Thus we have come to the conclusion of our examination of the teachings of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is my sincere hope that readers have been blessed in some measure by the reading of the Confession itself if not necessarily by my insignificant comments and summaries. If nothing else perhaps the reader's mind and heart have been elevated by contemplating some of the magnificent truths affirmed in this document. I pray that you have been driven back upon the Word of God itself, perhaps to confirm in Berean-like fashion against that un-normed Norm the claims that have been made herein. Even more, I pray that you have been driven back to the Author of that Word, for in him alone is life and light.

For the next several posts I will provide some additional historical background and introduce readers to some of the men who participated in the Westminster Assembly and contributed to the Confession as well as to the Catechisms.

Tomorrow: What is a Puritan?

Of the Last Judgment, XXXIII:2

The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

God's purpose in all that he does is the manifestation of his glory. The salvation of his people redounds to the glory of his grace and mercy (Ephesians 1:14). Likewise, the exercise of his holy justice is glorious, for God will be seen to be pure and holy, before whose eyes sin cannot parade itself. And so the wicked will go into eternal damnation.

The Confession knows only two eternal destinies, and the destiny of the wicked is one of torments and "everlasting destruction." They are not annihilated, but suffer destruction eternally. To our limited minds by our limited experience a finite thing cannot be destroyed forever--at some point its destruction must be complete. But this is not what we are told happens to the wicked, and all the more cause for fear and trembling to contemplate such a fate!

Tomorrow: The timing of the last day hidden.

Of the Last Judgment, XXXIII:1

God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

Fittingly, the end of our progress through the Westminster Confession of Faith brings us to the matter of the last things, specifically the coming judgment. The divines affirmed that judgment is coming without regard to appearances, that God knows the day he has appointed (even if no one else does) and the one whom he has appointed to be judge, even Jesus Christ. The Son has been given all authority. Every creature will come to him, either in grace or in wrath. The apostate angels will receive their due recompense. All persons who have ever lived will meet him and bow the knee. They will give an account and they will be responsible for the way in which they have lived their lives. All those who meet Jesus having already been united with him by faith and the prior appointment of the Father will receive his loving mercy; all others who do not have faith in him will receive justice.

Tomorrow: The purposes of judgment.

Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, XXXII:3

The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.

In the end, all who have died shall be raised. But there is a great difference in the destiny of men. Those who are of Christ will be raised in honor and glory and be made like unto him. Those who are still in their sins will be raised to wrath and dishonor. It is the subject of judgment to which we next turn.

Tomorrow: The coming judgment.

Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, XXXII:2

At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the self-same bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls for ever.

This is the great hope of the Christian, the towering truth proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. We, being created as psychosomatic unities, are not condemned to endure an eternity of incompleteness, but instead live in the expectation that just as we are now spiritually new creatures in Christ so we will physically be new creatures, glorious creatures, in Christ and will live and reign with him for eternity in a remade universe.

Tomorrow: The differential fate of the just and the unjust.

Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection from the Dead, XXXII:1

The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

We have come finally to the Confession's penultimate chapter. As is typical of systematic treatments of Christian doctrine the final subject taken up is that of the last things. This brief chapter concerns itself with the fate of men upon death. All men see death. Their corruptible bodies decompose and return to the earth. But their souls, according to this statement, have "an immortal subsistance." This is a controversial assertion. The inherent immortality of the soul is a Platonic teaching and is not necessarily found in Scripture. It may be more in keeping with biblical thought to speak of the human soul as possessing an everlasting existance, which is not a native characteristic but is granted and sustained by God himself. In any event, the soul continues to exist after the death of the physical body. It does not die, neither does it sleep (in contradistinction to teachings from other traditions).

Instead, the soul has an eternal destiny, one of two. The souls of the righteous in Christ live in glorious perfection, having been thoroughly sanctified and made fit by God for his heaven. There they wait for the final redemption of their bodies and their recreation as glorified humans who will live and reign with Christ forever. The souls of the unrighteous, however, go to hell, the place prepared for Satan, his demons, and them. It is described as a place of "torments and utter darkness." And their status after the resurrection will be worse than it was before.

There is no other destiny after death. The Roman Catholic teachings on limbo and purgatory are not biblical and are therefore false. Similarly, the Scriptures do not speak of annihilation, an idea that unhappily has obtained some purchase amongst evangelical Protestants.

Tomorrow: The great hope of the Christian.

Of Synods and Councils, XXXI:4

Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.


Church assemblies are to restrict themselves to ecclesiastical matters unless their advice on civil matters is solicited by the civil magistrate. In other words, there is to be a strict separation of church and state on the part of the church. The church should not "meddle" in strictly civil matters unless consulted.

Now, at the time of the Confession's writing it was broadly assumed that the civil magistrate would be a professing Christian and would conduct the affairs of state accordingly. There is a hint in the language that church assemblies could gently remind the civil magistrate of concerns touching upon conscience. But I rather doubt the divines had any idea that church-state relations would be routinely hostile. The fact that such relations have come about--or, that in the United States presently it is thought that the civil government should be "neutral" toward religion in general (but actually hostile toward any specific observance of religion except for secularism)--suggests that this chapter of the Confession is a candidate for revision.

Tomorrow: The fate of men after death.

Of Synods and Councils, XXXI:3

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.

Reformed Protestants carry no water for the idea that church councils are infallible. While we have great respect for the first four general ecumenical councils they remain subordinate to the authority of Scripture. To the extent that the decisions and decrees of a church council aligns with Scripture they are to be heeded, as we discussed yesterday. Only Scripture can be the rule of faith and practice. Yet councils, being composed of wise and experienced Christians, many of whom have steeped themselves in the wisdom of Scripture and have much sanctification, are valuable resources for the church and may offer great help that is perilous to disregard. This is the esteem in which we hold the Westminster Assembly--a great and good council, yet fallible, and always subject to correction by the Scriptures.

Tomorrow: Church assemblies and the civil magistrate.

Of Synods and Councils, XXXI:2

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.

In a nutshell, such assemblies properly concern themselves with matters of doctrine or Christian practicality and to settle disputes. In all things they strive to maintain the peace and purity of the church. But the authority of these assemblies is not absolute--if the decisions they make are consonant with Scripture, they should be heeded as is right given their ecclesiastical authority, but if contrary to Scripture they must not be obeyed.

Tomorrow: Synods and councils are not infallible.

Of Synods and Councils, XXXI:1

For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils; and it belongs to the overseers [elders] and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ has given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.

Most of this chapter is fairly self-explanatory, and familiar to those of us with a background in the presbyterian form of church government. This paragraph more or less states that assemblies of Christian churches and church members are useful. The specific benefits cited here are better government--striving toward the peace and purity of the church--and further edification--building one another up, especially with respect to Christian education (although not exclusively so). Such assemblies should meet as often as is necessary to benefit the church.

Tomorrow: Specific tasks and responsibilities of such assemblies.

Church Censures: Objections

"For the moment, all discipline sems painful rather than pleasant..."

There are two objections that are commonly voiced whenever the subject of church discipline comes up. The first is that discipline is harmful to sinners. It embarrasses them, it makes them feel unloved, it damages their self-esteem. The second objection is that discipline judges a brother's soul before God without warrant. We all know Matthew 7:1 (the world's favorite Bible verse) by heart from the number of times it gets quoted in these contexts.

How to respond? Firstly, Jesus Christ has commanded church discipline. By itself, this is sufficient to quash all objections. But there is more. Scripture sets forth this method of reclaiming erring brothers and demonstrates that it works (2 Corinthians 2:6-8). The lack of church discipline is indifference to the honor of Christ and the welfare of his flock. Exercising church discipline is no more an attempt to judge another's soul than is admittance to church membership in the first place, as prospective members should be examined as to the credibility of the faith they profess. The keys go together.

It is better that the honor of Christ and the cause of his truth be maintained than that 1000 sinners stay on the membership rolls to his dishonor. The results may be a smaller church, but it will be a more pure church. Our contemporary obsession with numbers and numerical growth is profoundly misplaced. We need to repent of it and trust God, not our marketing skills, for the increase.

"...but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12:11).

Tomorrow: The utility of church assemblies.

Of Church Censures, XXX:4

For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.

This paragraph elaborates on the measures available to church officers to discipline deserving members. These are meted out according to the nature of the crime and the demerit of the person and follow the prescribed pattern set out in Matthew 18. The punishment should fit the crime. Read Hebrews 12:11.

1. Admonition. Sometimes a gentle but firm rebuke is sufficient to waken a sinner. Admonition should first take place privately, then in concert with other concerned believers, and finally in public assembly.

2. Suspension from the Supper for a season. Why would this be a fitting punishment for some? Because admission to the Table is considered automatic to anyone who considers himself a Christian, it can bring one up short to realize that others no longer consider it safe for one to participate--recall our discussion of the Supper and the peril of the unworthy recipient.

3. Excommunication. To excommunicate is not to shun. The church is to treat the one under discipline as an unbeliever—proclaim the gospel to him and urge his repentance, pray for him, and befriend him. But such a one is not given the fellowship of Christ.

Tomorrow: Objections to church discipline answered.

Of Church Censures, XXX:3

Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.

This paragraph sets forth the purposes of church censures (disciplinary measures). Note that these are mostly positive. The emphasis is on reclamation and restoration, as well as setting a positive example for the church as a whole. Only the idea of avoiding the wrath of God is a negative.

Church censures are intended to:

1. Reclaim and gain offending brothers. Many think of discipline as primarily punitive. In the church, according to the biblical model, discipline is first and foremost restorative.

2. Deter others from committing like offenses. The proper exercise of discipline reminds everyone that sin is taken seriously by God and should be taken seriously by his people.

3. Purge out the leaven. In order to maintain the purity of the church and protect other members from the corrupting influences of unrepented sin it is necessary to exclude--hopefully for only a season--those who remain obstinate.

4. Vindicate the honor of Christ and the profession of the gospel. Do we really want the world to see the mud we splash around? Sadly this is all too characteristic of the church. The bride is a mess; it unjustly reflects on the bridegroom and the truth of his gospel of salvation.

5. Prevent the just wrath of God from falling on his people. Judgment begins with the house of God. Christians are called to have a greater righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharisees. In Christ we certainly have that greater righteousness (indeed, none greater) but we frequently don't live in keeping with our status.

God has entrusted the church with his holy things. We have a grave responsibility to handle them appropriately.

Tomorrow: The process of censures.

Of Church Censures, XXX:2

To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.

Church officers are entrusted with the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19). Contrary to the teaching of some communions, the sacraments are not the keys. Instead, as we have established rather thoroughly by now, the sacraments are the signs and seals of that to which men are admitted or from which they are excluded. The biblical keys are the faithful preaching of the gospel and the faithful exercise of church discipline.

The keys are used to bind and loose, or to retain or remit sins. They also shut the kingdom against the impenitent by the proclamation of the "bad news" of the wrath of God coming upon sinners, and the use of church discipline in the case of wayward members. And they open the kingdom unto the penitent through the gosple and by absolution/restoration of the penitant.

Tomorrow: The purpose of church censures.

Of Church Censures, XXX:1

The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.

For 21st century American Protestants this chapter might provide some challenges. The Westminster divines had rather pronounced views on the spiritual authority of church leaders that will sound strange and perhaps even threatening to our egalitarian patterns of thinking.

But this chapter certainly begins with a statement every Christian can endorse: the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church; indeed, he is Lord of all. This is a truth well established by now in our consideration of the Westminster Confession. See chapters VIII:1 and XXV:6 as well as Ephesians 3:23 and Colossians 1:18.

In his glorious wisdom, the Lord has seen fit to delegate some of his authority to local church leaders. He has appointed governing officers distinct from the civil magistrate, because the church is not co-extensive with the state. Not everyone who lives in a particular country also belongs to the church. This idea contrasts to that which prevailed through much of the 16th century in Europe, where the thought frequently was that the personal faith of the country's ruler would define the faith of all of his subjects as well. From this is a short step to the idea that religious dissent is treason against the king.

According to presbyterian thought (and the Westminster Assembly was chiefly, but not entirely, composed of presbyterian churchmen) the church government is apostolic in authority and presbyterian in form--that is, constituted as a plurality of elders. The principles of government set forth in the Scriptures include: Christ alone is head of the church; elders are chosen by the people over which they are to rule; all ruling officers are equal in authority; each particular church must have a plurality of elders; church officers are ordained by the presbytery (made up of the ruling eldership of the entire region or whatever organization is applied); and there is right of appeal from the smaller to the larger body.

Tomorrow: The keys of the kingdom.

A Summary of the Confession on the Lord's Supper

Attempting to provide a succinct summary of what the Westminster Confession of Faith has to say on the subject of the Lord's Supper, especially within the broader context of its treatment of sacraments as a whole, is a daunting prospect. Nevertheless, a few observations can be made with safety:

1. Regular participation in the Lord's Supper ("as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup") is a right, a privilege, and a duty of the Christian who truly places faith in Christ. This is one important means by which God feeds and sustains the Body of Christ.

2. Jesus Christ is specially present in the Lord's Supper in a unique way, but not in the way considered by Roman Catholics or Lutherans. And the memorialists have missed something very significant (multiple meanings intended).

3. There is a reason, worked out in history, why so much of the conflict between biblical Christians and Roman Catholicism has centered upon the Supper. Faithful Protestant forebears paid the ultimate earthly price to defend their Christian views from wrong-headed fanatics and partisans. We disgrace their memory when we lightly dismiss the differences that are still very much in evidence.

4. Similarly, a light view of the Supper disregards the great danger in which unworthy participants place themselves. The Church must regain right thinking on the Supper so that the blessings abound and the curses are forefended.

Tomorrow: Biblical government of the church.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:8

Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

Very stern words on the part of the Westminster divines here are quite appropriate, because the sacraments are serious and we have a tendency to regard such things all too lightly.

Unbelievers who participate in the Supper despite not being eligible to do so receive the sign (the outward elements of bread and wine) but not the things signified. Because transubstantiation and consubstantiation are incorrect views, the unbeliever does not eat or drink Christ physically; because he does not believe--has no faith--he does not receive Christ spiritually either. All he gets is bread and wine, plus something else he didn't bargain for.

The unbeliever eats unworthily, without faith, and so is guilty of the body and blood of Christ and brings condemnation upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:27). Instead of blessings he receives curses. Instead of promises he comes under condemnation.

As it is a great sin for unbelievers to partake of the Supper or even to be admitted to the sacrament, the responsibility falls upon believers--especially church leaders--to ensure that no one eats and drinks unworthily. The presiding minister should fence the table, warning the people congregated of the seriousness of the sacrament, discouraging any unbelievers from participating for their own sake as well as the sake of the church.

Tomorrow: Summary thoughts on the Lord's Supper.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:7

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Here the Confession asserts the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. Christ is fed upon by faith. When the Christian takes the Supper by faith, he feeds really and truly in a spiritual (not carnal or corporeal) manner upon Christ, receiving him "crucified, and all benefits of his death" as previously discussed. Hence, this is not a bare memorial observance, nor does it insist upon unbiblical concepts of Christ's presence.

Transubstantiation was firmly denied in the preceding paragraph as we reviewed yesterday. In this paragraph the Lutheran view also comes under criticism. In the view of the Westminster divines, the Lutheran error is not as egregious as the doctrine of transubstantiation, so the Confession is gently firm in its rejection. There is an injury done to the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ in the Lutheran teaching (hotly denied by Lutherans, but there you have it) that destroy's Christ's true humanity. How can a human body be present in more than one place at the same time and yet remain a true human body? This doctrine of ubiquity conflicts with the Definition of Chalcedon. Historically, the denial of Christ's dual nature is termed monophysitism.

Christians participate in the Supper exactly as did the Twelve except that Christ was then physically present in the flesh but never in the elements themselves. When he broke the bread and said of it, "This is my body," the bread did not then and does not now become his living flesh. By the Spirit, in the real spiritual presence of our Lord, Christ is as really present to us who believe as are the elements.

Tomorrow: Receiving the Supper unworthily.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:6

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

The Confession denies in rather strong terms the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is consistent with the position of generations of English and Scottish Reformers. Several statements deserve comment:

1. Repugnant to Scripture and common sense and reason. The former, because there is no Scriptural support for the doctrine and it is inconsistent with the way miracles are portrayed therein (see John 2:1-11 for an example of real transubstantiation); the latter, because it is a “miracle” that is not miraculous—there is no evidence of any real change. The Roman Catholic treatment of pertinent passages is eisegetical.

2. Overthrows the nature of the sacrament. Again, the sign is not the thing signified.

3. “A lying sign and wonder”—the cause of manifold superstitions, even gross idolatries. See 2 Thessalonians 2:9. The belief that the elements of bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ (when they are not) leads naturally to adoration and worship, which is idolatry.

Tomorrow: The Reformed view of the Supper.

Main Views of the Lord's Supper III

Today we take up the third view of the relationship of Christ to the sacrament of the Supper that has appeared in church history, that of the so-called memorial view. Traditionally associated with Ulrich Zwingli (although there is evidence he was moving away from this view toward the end of his life) and held by many Christians who trace their spiritual ancestry to Anabaptism, this view of the Supper maintains that the sacrament is purely memorial. Nothing more transpires than that the recipient focuses his mind upon Christ and his sacrifice. Christ is nomore or less present at the celebration of the Supper than he is when a Christian prays or reads his Bible. There is no special channel of grace to the Christian by his participation in this sacrament. This view is probably the majority position among those who would call themselves evangelical or fundamentalist. Wags have referred tot his view as the doctrine of "the real absence," because it emphasizes that Jesus is neither physically present nor especially spiritually present in the Supper, as opposed to the other views that compete for the designation, "the real presence."

The fourth view, that held by Reformed Christians, will be discussed in more detail when we consider the seventh paragraph of this chapter.

Tomorrow: Transubstantiation denied.

Main Views of the Lord's Supper II

Today we'll briefly examine the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, popularly known as "consubstantiation," although not by Lutherans. Martin Luther denied transubstantiation, the medieval Roman Catholic teaching we reviewed yesterday. In his theology, the bread and wine remain as they are. But he insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of Jesus' words "This is my body." Lutherans teach that the physical, material substance of Christ's flesh and blood are present in, with, and under the elements, such that the physical Jesus is really received with the taking of the sacrament. Some have made an analogy to the way a sponge holds water--the water is really in the sponge, but the substance of the sponge itself is not changed. Lutherans use the concept of ubiquity to explain how Christ can be physically present in many places at once when the Supper is celebrated.

Tomorrow: The memorial view.

Main Views of the Lord's Supper I

Over the next few days we will take a brief excursus in order to examine the principal views of the Lord's Supper held by the various western Christian traditions (I'm not sufficiently versed in the Eastern Orthodox view to make any comments here). The first view is transubstantiation according to Roman Catholicism. For this we will again look at what the 1994 Catechism has to say:

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

Official teaching on this sacrament is careful to distinguish between the substance of the elements and what are called the accidens of the elements--that the bread and wine retain all the outward appearances of bread and wine does not negate the substantial change that has taken place. According to the Roman Catholic Church, in the Mass the bread truly becomes the real, physical flesh of the body of Christ even though it looks, smells, feels, and tastes like bread. And similarly the wine undergoes a substantial but not accidental change.

Tomorrow: The Lutheran view of the Supper.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:5

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

The sign is not the thing signified. Signs point to or designate other things but are themselves not the thing they designate. There is instead in the sacraments a spiritual relationship between the sign and that to which it points.

The bread points to the body of Christ broken for us; the wine points to the blood of Christ shed for us (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). It is legitimate, because of the sacramental metaphorical identity, to call the bread the body of Christ and to call the wine the blood of Christ. But the elements remain bread and wine. There is no change in their substance. We will delve into this in greater detail as we discuss the next paragraph of the Confession.

An analogy can be made between this concept and the two natures of Christ. The Lord is both God and man. Being God, he does not cease to be fully human; being human, he does not cease to be fully divine. There is no mixture or confusion of the natures. The human nature does not become divine, and the divine nature does not become human. Thus also the sacramental union between bread and body, wine and blood.

Tomorrow: Introduction to the main doctrinal views on the Supper.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:4

Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

Many of the practices common to Roman Catholicism decried in this paragraph flow out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. This will be discussed in greater detail when we arrive at our discussions around paragraph six.

In brief summary, the divines considered as inappropriate (or just plain wrong) private masses, denial of the cup to the people (also known as communion in one kind), worshipping or adoring the elements (the bread and the wine), lifting up the elements for purposes of adoration, and reserving the elements for any pretended religious uses such as relics or for alleged healing.

Tomorrow: The sign and the thing signified.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:3

The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

This paragraph concerns the proper administration of the Supper. The Confession is clear that ordained ministers of the gospel officiate. Some are under the impression that any Christian may administer the Supper. The Confession denies this, placing the authority to administer the Supper only in the hands of duly-ordained ministers of the church. This helps to prevent abuses; for one thing, there is ostensibly more accountability for the ordained minister, who answers to the local session as well as to the presbytery and general assembly. According to the Confession, the minister declares the words of institution (never sacrament without word), prays, blesses and sets apart the elements from their common to sacred use (but the elements remain bread and wine), takes and breaks the bread, takes the cup, and communicates himself in both kinds along with the congregation. In the Middle Ages it was the typical practice for the priest to offer only the bread to the congregation, reserving the wine for the official celebrants. The Reformers admantly (and biblically) opposed this.

The Supper, when celebrated, is not subsequently offered to those not present, with certain exceptions. The emphasis here is on the proclamation of the word and the communion of believers as key to a proper observance of the Supper. It is appropriate to celebrate the Supper in private homes (for shut-ins) or hospitals and nursing homes when the sacrament is celebrated with a group of like-minded believers and the word is also proclaimed.

Tomorrow: Forbidden practices touching on the Supper.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:2c

In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

According to the Scriptures:

1. The Supper is not an offering or real sacrifice for atonement or propitiation of sins (Hebrews 7:23ff.).

2. The Supper commemorates Christ's once-for-all sacrifice that cannot be repeated (Hebrews 9:24-28).

3. The Supper is properly conceived as a spiritual oblation of praise unto God (Hebrews 13:15-16).

The proper emphasis in any celebration of the Lord's Supper is what Christ has done and is doing in his divine session and the spiritual graces made evident, not upon what any celebrant is doing with the bread and wine.

Tomorrow: The biblical conduct of the Supper.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:2b

In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

With yesterday's several citations from the 1994 Roman Catholic catechism fresh in mind, we consider today the words of Ludwig Ott from his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

“The sacrifice of the Mass effects the remission of the temporal punishments for sin which still remain after the forgivement of the guilt of sins and of the eternal punishment, not merely mediately by the conferring of the grace of penance, but also immediately, because the atonement of Jesus Christ is offered as a substitute for our works of atonement and for the sufferings of the poor souls. The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional, in the case of the living, to the degree of perfection of their disposition. In the case of the suffering souls, the satisfactory operation of the Sacrifice of the Mass is applied by way of intercession…As they are in the state of grace and those oppose no obstacle, theologians generally teach that at least part of their punishments for sins is infallibly remitted.”

As James White observes, “In Roman Catholic theology, a person can attend a thousand masses and still leave this life ‘not yet fully purified.’ The ramifications of this should not be missed, especially in light of the claim that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary.”

Tomorrow: The biblical doctrine of the Supper examined.

Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:2a

In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

This paragraph was written in direct opposition to contemporaneous Roman Catholic teaching. It follows in the great tradition of the Protestant Reformation.

To understand what the divines at Westminster opposed, it is helpful to examine pertinent sections of Roman Catholic dogma, here obtained from their 1994 Catechism. Read each section carefully and bear these concepts in mind as we procede with the discussion:

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection. The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

Tomorrow: Contrasting the biblical doctrine of the Supper with the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Mass, continued.