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.