CONFLICT IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST - THE CHRISTMAS MESSAGE

The church of Jesus Christ is presented in Scripture as God's new society in the world. She is described as that body of people who form a new humanity, distinct from the old humanity, yet having its origin in it. The Christian Church is the ’ecclesia,’ the 'called-out ones'; they are those who have been separated from the world, that is, from life

organised apart from any consideration of God or His Word of truth, to be a peculiar people chosen by the Sovereign God. As such,these 'called-out' people are different from those who have not been ’called-out’ from the world. They have a different outlook in life, observe different principles, serve a different Master, and are going to a different destiny. They are the people of God, the elect.

Now since it is impossible, in this life,to detect exactly who the elect of God are, our Lord teaches us that it is "by their fruits" that they are to be known,(Mt.7:16,20). What they are on the inside will be revealed by what they do outwardly. It may take a long time, even a life-time, for this to appear, but appear it assuredly will. But until that time comes, it is almost impossible to tell among those who make a public  profession of faith just who are the true children of God, and who are not. So great care has to be taken so that mistaken judgments are not made before the time, (1 Cor.4:5a; cf.Mt.13:30a).

It seems to be here that the problem of conflict occurs. There are those who claim to be Christians, who believe and say the right things, go to the right places and meetings, and associate with the right people, but who may not be Christians at all. They have all the appearances of being true believers, but alas they are from a different family altogether. And within the church of Christ, these people are accepted as members on a profession of faith. In the church, the wheat and the weeds grow and develop together until harvest, (Mt.13:25); within her bounds, the children of the flesh and those of the Spirit co-habitate, (Gal.4:22,23,29,30).

Further, there is the fact that in the world, there are those who are not God's people just as there are those who are. They share the same planet together, work in the same places, travel on the same roads, live on the same streets, attend the same churches, and do so together. These two distinct groups of people belong to different kingdoms whose rulers are utterly opposed to each other. Therefore the respective members of these kingdoms are automatically involved in a spiritual battle, or conflict, with those who serve the other master. There is a given-ness about this state of affairs that cannot be gainsaid. This is the true situation in which the Christian believer finds himself. God and Satan are at war; and their respective followers are called into and are actively engaged in the battle as well.

Given this scenario, it is but inevitable, though surprising, that conflict should arise within the body of Christ on earth. Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon," (Mt.6:24). The sheer impossibility of this ever happening is denied categorically by our Lord. Any man can but serve one master at any one time. The Christian Church is set apart for the exclusive service of the Living God; but when there are those within the church who even hold positions of authority and leadership over God's people, yet who are in the service of another master, conflict will inevitably arise.

Conflict, then, within the church as visible must be recognised as normal, and not in anyway abnormal or strange. There should be great concern in the hearts of all true believers when the church is at peace with God's enemy. Christians should engage in deep and thorough examination of their hearts when they can get on well with those who hate their Saviour, and blaspheme His holy name. That is not to say that Christians ought to go out looking for trouble and conflict, for they ought to live at peace with all men, as much as it depends upon them, (Rom.12:18).

However, that being said, Christians often compromise their own testimony when they refuse to take their stand for Christ, when He is being ridiculed. And in so doing, they display a disregard for their Lord's honour in the world that is nothing short of disgraceful.

In trying to serve two mutually exclusive masters, they end up serving only the one, Satan. When a survey of the teaching of the entire Old and New Testaments is carried out, it will be observed that the first record of conflict is found in Gen.3, where the serpent confronts the woman, Eve, and makes suggestions to her of the harshness of God in not allowing her and her husband free scope in the Garden of Eden, and then,having gained her ear, proceeds to deny outright the doctrine of divine judgement which was pronounced by God upon Adam in the event of his disobeying His Word. This having been done, enmity was established between God and humankind, Gen.3:8, 13,16, and between God and the devil, Gen.3:14, 15. This conflict between heaven and earth had its ramifications between men, for in Gen.4:1,8, the account of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain is given in a simple,unadorned and factual manner. Separation of man from God resulted in separation between people in the one family, a separation that was evidenced in death, the basic meaning of which is 'separation, not termination.' The remainder of the Old Testament is full of the same sin which manifested itself in various ways.

When the New Testament is studied, the motif of conflict introduces the Gospel record. When the Christ-child's birth is announced by the angels of God, the enmity of men's heart was brought out in a terrible manner, with the decision of the government to kill all baby boys two years old and younger to ensure that the rival King to Herod might also be destroyed, Mt.2:1 -18. The entrance of the Messiah into the world which He came to redeem was bathed in conflict that issued in blood.

The earthly ministry of the Lord exhibits the same conflict principle. First with the religious leaders of His day, then with the political leaders, Jesus Christ found Himself regularly in confrontational situations which sought to compromise Him in some way or other. Traps were laid for Him by the lawyers, by Pharisees, by Sadducees, and by Scribes. Often the trouble arose because of the very presence of Jesus with them; what He said and did stirred up an unbelievable level of opposition against Him. No legitimate reason can be given to justify such opposition against the Son of God. It could not be said that His attitude towards those with whom He differed was sinful. Nor could it be argued that He set out deliberately to get people's backs up against Him and His cause and kingdom. Nor could it be alleged that He treated people badly, cared nothing for their feelings, forgot that they were people made in God's image, or simply tried to discourage them for the sheer sake of it. Who and what He was, was sufficient to guarantee a hostile reception from those who saw Him as a threat to their lives and religion. The pure and sinless Son of God coming into a wicked world that had already proved the depth of it's opposition to any intrusion into its affairs by the mal-treatment and killing of God's servants the prophets, was designed to provoke a strong uprising in men's hearts. And it did just that! When perfect holiness meets guilty sinfulness, something must give; and it won't be God's perfect holiness!

Throughout His earthly ministry, every step that God's Son took was contested strongly both by His enemies and by those called to be His disciples. Even they did not understand as they should the reason for His coming into the world. They imagined that He too would follow the ways of the world in order to establish His Kingdom in the world; that He too would attract followers by doing sensational dramatics, like being a 'temple-jumper,' Mt.4:5-7. But His Kingdom was not of this world, nor were His methods of establishing it. This lesson had to be learnt by His closest followers.

The death of the Messiah by crucifixion was the epitome of the wickedness of the human heart. At Calvary, the iniquity came to the fore for all to see. What men did to God's innocent Son was and is inexcusable, and is punishable by eternal death. Yet it was in precisely this way that God would redeem His people, and bring them into fellowship with Himself by reconciling them to God; for ”without the shedding of blood” there could be no forgiveness of sin for anyone. Christ was tortured, He suffered, and eventually died on that Roman gibbet.

Yet that was not the end of the matter, for on the third day, God wrought the greatest miracle that could ever be wrought when He raised His Son from death. The risen Christ appeared to the Eleven, to the wider group of followers, and last of all to Saul on the Damascus road, (1 Cor.15:1-8).

The fact of the resurrection of Christ, attested by many reliable witnesses, became a focal point in the kerugma of the early church. On occasions, the apostles were forbidden to preach in the Name of the risen Christ. Their message was a ridiculous one in the extreme; yet it was the crowning event of God's mighty acts. This event provided the proof that God had accepted the sacrifice that Christ made on the Cross for sin, thus opening up the way for the salvation or the world. When the early church commenced preaching this message, again conflict was provoked, and the disciples and apostles bore the brunt of it. The church was persecuted, scattered far and wide, and left as dead. But the believers of the Diaspora did not cease to be Christians when this happened, but saw this as God's mysterious way of sending out His people with the message of the Gospel that would enlighten men's natural darkness. One would have imagined that such a message would be welcome to men in sin, but such was not the case. Persecution intensified against the infant church, and this went on for many centuries until the life of the church was almost snuffed out.

Conflict commenced in time at a very early stage of man's existence in this world, and will continue unabated throughout history to the end of time, and this too will be marked by conflict. The forces of light and darkness will confront each other at the end, but the outcome will be in no more doubt then than it ever was during the years of history. God's truth, Kingdom, cause, and people will be vindicated publicly, and God's great eternal purpose which He wrought out in time through His despised servants, against all odds, will be seen for the glorious purpose that it is.

A Happy Christmas Possible Only In Christ

May I be permitted to share a brief word or two at this time of year when traditionally we remember the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came into the world to be its Saviour? I want you to hear the words of a man who was filled with the Holy Spirit and who rejoiced in the birth of the Saviour. His name is Zacharias (Lk.1:67), the father of John the Baptist and whose wife, Elizabeth, was the cousin of Jesus' mother, Mary. Zacharias was struck dumb because of his refusal to believe the words that Gabriel had spoken (vvs.19, 20). His mouth was opened and he began to praise God; and in his worship of the living God, he prophesied and said, "Blessed is the Lord God of Israel; for He has visited and redeemed His people..." (Lk.1:68).

Allowing for the fact that Zacharias was a Jew, a Hebrew, his prayer related to the Lord's chosen and ancient people, Israel, (v.68). He thanks God that He has visited and redeemed His people - the Jews. Whilst he ought to have known that God demanded that Israel show mercy to the outsider, the Gentiles or non-Jews, quite clearly he had forgotten this fact. Yet God accepted his worship and had it recorded for posterity in the pages of Scripture.

But did God visit and redeem His people Israel only? Clearly that is not the case. Yes, He visited them in the Person of His Son at that time, and through His death on Calvary He purchased their redemption. But He has also visited and redeemed us. How? Well, in addition to what happened in Bethlehem some two thousand years ago, when the Gospel is preached in our hearing, God is visiting us. Oh, how careful we ought to be when we hear the Gospel? This is God visiting us with a personal message of salvation. You have heard Him and so have I. But what have you done about it? Have you opened your heart and received it? Or, have you gone on rejecting it?

God has visited His people. But He has also redeemed the world through the death of Christ. Redemption for all has been purchased by the blood of Christ. God has shown His marvellous grace to a guilty human race in providing redemption for it. Does the world deserve redemption? Not at all. It deserves the very opposite. Does the God Who purchased that redemption at such colossal cost want all men everywhere to receive the benefits of that redemption? Yes, and a million times yes. He now reaches out His hand of grace to draw into His family and fold all who receive His Son, Jesus Christ. Have you? There is no need for you to perish forever for God has provided the only way of escape - and it becomes yours through trusting in the blood of God's only Son, "Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of mankind," to quote Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones as he finished a sermon I heard him preach in Leeds in 1973.

Is Christmas about cards and gifts and trees and turkey and trifle and tinsel? Not a bit. It is what was necessary for the Saviour of the lost to die on Calvary. When you commemorate the Saviour's birth this year, remember why it was that He came all those years ago. He came so that He could visit and redeem you for Himself. He has visited you in the Gospel and through those godly lives that have come into contact with you and through that Gospel tract that you've received - and you know it! On Calvary He has redeemed you, but do you know that? Have you bowed the knee and received this glorious salvation, this redemption, that cost God His Son and the Son His life? And if you are to receive its benefits, it is going to cost you as well - it will cost you your sin. Are you prepared to give up what you cannot keep in order to have what you cannot lose? Think on these things.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST AND CONFLICT.

It is often wrongly assumed that conflict is aroused when someone says or does something that irritates another. Either he is abrupt or otherwise nasty, or he behaves in a particularly unacceptable manner. In each case, the other person is offended, and conflict is provoked. This is not true in principle, however. In practice, it often is the case, given the fallenness of human nature. Yet, care must be taken when applying this principle to the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

When the accounts of the incarnation of Jesus Christ are examined in Matthew, Luke and John, a recurring trend may be discerned. At the time of His birth in Bethlehem of Judea, a tremendous uproar was created in neighbouring Jerusalem when King Herod heard of the arrival of a new "King". The royal Baby had just been born, had neither said nor done anything, yet His very presence in the nation caused intense opposition against Him. Herod knew that a new King being born in his jurisdiction heralded the end of his own sinful reign over the Jews. This amounted to nothing less than a massive threat to his throne and to his personal sovereignty. His security had now been undermined and his position of leadership on the verge of toppling. The king's wicked lifestyle was challenged by the arrival this Child's presence in Bethlehem. And what made matters worse was the fact that King Herod had not even known of the birth, nor that such a birth was to have taken place! The very secrecy of the birth of God's Son threw him into mental turmoil and anguish. What was happening? Matthew makes it abundantly clear that Herod's nerves were seriously frayed,(2:13).

But not only was Herod, and no doubt his political advisers, greatly alarmed at the news of the Saviour's birth, so also was all Jerusalem,(v.3). The entire city was thrown into turmoil at the news. The inhabitants of Jerusalem was in the main Jewish, and of all people they ought to have rejoiced at the word of the Messiah's birth. But they did not! They too were disturbed, very upset, troubled. The verb, ϵταραχθη, is aorist, and is in the passive voice, indicating that this was something that had happened to them. The root verb, ταρασσω, is a Homeric term, means that "to shake something out of inertia and throw it into confusion, i.e, to disturb, to upset, to confound, to agitate.[1] The Old Testament (LXX) on the whole uses this word in the usual Greek sense. The word is used in the New Testament of troubling the waters, (Jn.5:4,7), and in the passive sense, is always used negatively, connoting emotional disturbance: to become terrified, afraid, overawed. The Synoptics use the infinitive, ταρασσομαι, only five times, always with this meaning, and that two of the five are found in the nativity narratives, (Mt.2:3; 14:26; Mk.6:50; Lk.1:12; 24:38).In every case the reference is to an emotional shock which is brought about not by human action, but by the action of God. This is important, because the birth of the Messiah was nothing if not divine action, divine intervention. Herod's heart, and the heart's of the people of Jerusalem experienced the reality of internal commotion when God became flesh in the Person of His Son. And when a person is churned up inside, there arises a bitterness that issues in the desire for revenge, leading in turn in the lust for murder; thus conflict is born.

In Herod's case, the conflict came about because his own sinfulness was being exposed by the presence of God's holy Son. His was primarily an inner conflict. He was not at peace with himself, therefore he could not be at peace with others, especially rivals. The absence of inner peace and the disunity of heart that he experienced are explicable only in terms of his being a rebel against Almighty God. His own personal history, coupled as it necessarily was with that of his forebears, did not make for pleasant thinking. His guilt stared him in the face. Sin was alive and well in Herod's life.

Here we can draw the conclusion that our Lord did not have to say or do anything to have a far–reaching effect upon those around him. His presence alone stirred up conflict. He was different to those around him, and this difference exerted its own influence upon their thinking. His presence in Bethlehem was a mighty challenge to all who lived there, and to everything they did. Most of all, perhaps, it launched the greatest challenge to the religion which they had embraced, or had not embraced as the case may be. The Jewish religion spoke of the coming of the Messiah, God's Anointed One, to Bethlehem in Judea. That entire religious system was a pointer to its fulfilment in the Person of the promised Messiah. Consequently, the Jews ought to have been awaiting the Messiah, and to have expected His arrival amongst them at any time. But alas, they themselves did not know the time of His appearing, nor receive Him when He did in fact come, Jn.1:11,12. He was rejected by His own people. And where there is rejection of God's Son and Gospel, there necessarily will be conflict.

---

[1]   NIDNTT, Ed. Colin Brown, Exeter, 1978, Vol.3, p.709. The noun, ταραχος, connotes agitation, confusion, tumult.

Does the Church Need Confessions and Creeds?

Why does the church need confessions and creeds? Isn’t the Scripture sufficient on its own? Is there a deficiency in the Scriptures that necessitates them being supplemented by man-made confessions?

And if the church needs confessions, etc, ought these to be clearly "founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God"? One thing is clear: confessions that exhibit a partisan orientation cannot be definition be "founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God." One good criterion on which to assess any confession of faith is to look at what it teaches regarding the very heart of the Christian Gospel – the Atonement. If God’s provision for the salvation of mankind is denied, either explicitly or implicitly, then it is not true to God’s revealed will in Scripture. Sadly, the Westminster Confession of Faith and its offspring fall into this category, whereas the Three Forms of Unity, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt, do not. Therefore these are to be preferred as confessions of one’s belief and of the belief of the churches to those documents that deny Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the world.[1] If a confession is in error here, then the teaching of its (usual) first chapter On Scripture has been undermined. What follows such an opening chapter must be demonstrably true to its statements, and any questionable doctrines must either be removed from the confession or emended in line with Scripture.

---

[1]   Jn.1:29; 3:16; 1 Jn.2:2.

Do Theological Seminaries and Colleges Destroy Preaching?

Dr Henry Drummond thinks that seminaries are doing an inadequate job in the training of preachers because, firstly, teachers have so given themselves to the historico-critical method that it has suddenly undermined the authority of the Word of God. Preachers now do not have confidence in the Scriptures, therefore they do not believe that the unfolding of the Word of God is where the power of preaching really is. Secondly, the homiletical departments of seminaries and colleges have generally failed to emphasise expository preaching. Since Fosdick, life-situation preaching has been emphasised. The climate in many congregations today is such that it dictates a low priority of preaching, where preaching is not seen as significant in ministry at all. So often, Christians prefer to sit in judgment on the preaching, and even say such things as this: "if a man cannot say what he has to say in15-20 minutes, he shouldn't be a preacher." Today, preaching must be ultra-brief and go over us and hit our neighbour. This anti-preaching climate has a destructive effect on the preacher himself, for his very call is under question, his raison d’tre is challenged. And if such a climate tends to destroy the preacher, then the congregation has little or no chance of surviving. What many congregations want today is, not a preacher of the Word of God, but an office manager, (Ravenhill).

Preaching Is Not A Profession.

"Preaching is not a profession; it is an obsession, and a passion. And if it isn't, a man should not preach," says Dr Leonard Ravenhill. It is the key to any church and to any pastorate. Where the preaching fails, all else fails; but where the preaching is raised to its proper place and priority in the mind of both minister and congregation, everything else is raised thereby. It is the central aspect of the church's life and mission. 

Minister's must never think of preaching as a mere adjunct,a duty that has to be performed, a part of their professional responsibility. It should be their very life, their obsession, their passion. To preach the Gospel should be the one thing they live to do above all else! He must burn to do it week in and week out. He must preach, or his heart will burst. Jeremiah speaks with deep feeling when he talks about God's Word in his heart like a burning fire, shut up in his bones, (Jer.20:9). He says that he is weary of holding it in, indeed he cannot! He must preach the Word, or burn up. His burning prophetic vocation compelled him to testify concerning covenant spirituality, despite all opposition from his beloved fellow countrymen, (R. K. Harrison, Jeremiah, Tyndale Press, 1973:113). Jeremiah did not regard himself as a professional prophet. To him, preaching was a categorical imperative. He must preach or die! His attempts not to do so merely wearied him out.

The true preacher knows that his work is an obsession and a passion; with Paul he can say, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel," (1Cor.9:16).

The Firm's Men.

Why is it that the 'firm's men' within the churches do not want to face up to the challenge of reforming the church to which they belong? One answer: their church is so perfect that it does not need further reformation, or reforming. A perfect church does not need to be brought into line with Christ and His will for His people, because such a church is already there.

One question to ask the 'firm's men' within your denomination is this: what must be done to conform our church to the likeness of Christ? What changes does she need to make? Are they fundamental changes, or are they peripheral? Does your church base its activities, beliefs and practices around your preferences, or are they biblically based? If they are biblically-based, why do so many other sound evangelicals believe and practice differently?

Is your church the kind of church that you could, with confidence, bring an unsaved friend along to and be sure he would hear the Gospel being preached by the preacher? Does your man preach the Gospel clearly and with passion? Can you sense that he is heart and soul committed to what he is telling you? Or is it just a lecture, a 'glorified bible study,' as Dr Lloyd-Jones describes such performances? When you listen to him praying, reading the Scripture and preaching, do you get a sense of God, an awareness that God is in the midst?

These are the questions that Christians within the churches need to ask their leadership and address with urgency. Too many professing Christians seem content to be part of a denomination that opposes and rejects the Gospel and that has a clear alliance with theological liberalism. They don't mind evangelicals and liberals cooperating and exchanging pulpits and sharing 'fellowship.' They, by their actions (or inactions) are sending out a very clear message that liberalism is not wrong, that it has an understanding of the Gospel that differs from theirs, but it is not that bad at all because we believe that if God wants a sinner saved, He will do it anyway. Now thank God that He is sovereign in salvation as in all other matters; but how wicked a thing it is to use this precious doctrine to excuse the error and falsehood of liberalism and also to excuse their refusal to deal with this evil and to remove it from their midst!

Do evangelicals in theologically corrupt denominations not realise that liberalism is as different from Christianity as Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are from Christianity? Now here's the irony: evangelicals in these denominations would be up in arms if they were to join with these other world religions, but seem to be blissfully ignorant of the strange bed-fellows they are sharing with right now. To accept error as just another and different way of understanding the Scriptures is to damn countless souls in hell and to love what God hates.

Our Amazing Christian Faith

The Christian faith truly is amazing; and it is most practical.  The Christian faith ‘works’ when you need it most; the Lord is with us when we really need His presence.  And this faith ‘works’ because it’s true – it’s not true because it works. 

Let me relate to you a situation that will make the point.  It was in an email I received this morning from a very dear brother and ministerial colleague from Norwich, England, in which he wrote to tell me that his “dad died and entered into glory in the early hours of this morning.”  Now only a true Christian can say that.  This is the believer’s sure conviction, based, not on airy-fairy thinking or some kind of a false belief system, but on the truth of Holy Scripture.  That truth was made real in this Christian man’s life, hence the certainty of where the deceased now is.  Margaret and I had the privilege of knowing him for several years, and enjoyed the family’s warm hospitality on many occasions.

The family knew for a number of days that the end for father was drawing near.  His son continued, “We have our sadness but the Lord has been very gentle to us.  We have over a period of time been made ready for his departure.  By yesterday I think we were all ready. Indeed mum said that she prayed that the Lord would take him to himself last night and he heard her prayer.”

This is a reality that we have experienced over many months since Margaret’s illness, and we know what they are talking about.  The Lord really does answer His people’s prayers.  How kind He was to our friend, and especially to his dear wife and family, when He answered her prayer for her husband. 

“We have seen the Lord's hand marvellously at work over recent weeks.  We have experienced his providential care, we have been upheld by his strength and we have known his peace.”

This is normal Christian experience – knowing the hand of the Lord on us in every situation, especially the challenging ones.  We have seen Him intervene in ways that were barely noticeable, but after the event we saw so clearly His good hand upon us.  Knowing yourself being upheld by His strength is the most wonderful of experiences.  And it’s all normal Christian experience.

“Dad was clearly at peace when he died and was ready to leave to higher realms.  We have been greatly comforted by the scriptures and by the encouragement of the Lord's people.”

Drugs can give the impression that someone dies in peace, masking what is really going on as they are about to leave this life and stand before God the righteous “Judge of all the earth” (Gen.18:25). But having been with quite a number of Christians as they died, this is a wonderful experience because we can see the peace of God in their faces, a peace that is no different really from the peace of God they enjoyed in life.  Our brother died in that peace.

This wonderful message confirms our faith in a remarkable way.

What is it that guarantees that a sinner dies in the peace of God?  Only one answer: that they were at peace with God.  No one can have the ‘peace of God’ if he is not at ‘peace with God.’  And how does someone come to be at peace with God?  Again, only one way: by a personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, joined to genuine repentance toward God for a life of sinful rebellion against His holy Person and Law.  Our octogenarian friend was at ‘peace with God’ for the past two decades or so, hence he died in the ‘peace of God.

Think of this: how will you die?  For one out of one dies.  Not a great statistic, is it?  How will you die?  In the ‘peace of God’ because you are at ‘peace with God’?  Or, will your death be one of infinite horror that has been masked by powerful drugs?  Will it be heaven, or will it be hell? 

Paul says, “Be reconciled with God” (2 Cor.5:20).  “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Ac.16:31).  Jesus said, “You must be born again” (Jn 3:7).  “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn 3:16).

"Follow No Divisive Course"

To the ordinary person, this sounds like very good counsel. Within Christian circles, we are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," (Eph.4:3). We are to pursue "peace with all men,...." (Heb.12:14). The writers of these wise words knew full well that it is simply not possible to be in good terms with everyone because all do not hold to the historic Christian faith. So their own experiences and the experiences of fellow apostles and disciples of the Lord demonstrate that these words are not to be taken at their face value.

But some churches do just that! They counsel their ministers not to follow any divisive course. Now you know what that means in practice. They are never to take a decision that would tend to cause disharmony within the congregation even though the congregation is made up of the converted and the unconverted. They are to keep in with the unconverted members of the church, and do or say nothing that would cause them to be offended. As one former theological college principal told a young colleague, "Say what the people want you to say and do what they want you to do." This is what even the professedly purest reformed churches are doing in practice, the most theologically orthodox, the separatist churches.

When it comes to sacramental discipline, they are bound to accept as Christian members those covenant children and young people who are requesting church membership, provided their behaviour does not undermine their profession. The policy seems to be that if a potential church member's behaviour does not contradict their profession, the church presumes that they are regenerate, so admits them to full church membership. If it creates a mist on a mirror that is placed under its nostrils, and its parents are already members of the church, then baptise it - just to keep the peace. Whatever you do, do not ask about whether or not they are born again, or saved, or converted to Christ. Why? Because that is liable to cause division in the congregation.

But perhaps the worst manifestation of this is in the case where the Gospel is not preached with anything resembling clarity by the minister. Problems arise when the minister preaches a clear biblical Gospel. But problems ought to arise where the minister simply does not preach the Gospel clearly and biblically and to the consciences of the members. In fact, problems ought to be caused in any church that does not preach the Gospel. Elders have an awesome responsibility to God and to those who worship in the same church to ensure that the Gospel is preached with power and conviction, and that hearers are left in no doubt as to their spiritual condition and what God requires of them if they are to escape the wrath and curse of God due them for sin. How will they answer to the Lord when while on earth they knew the gospel is not being preached in their church, yet they took no decisive action to have this unacceptable situation rectified? Such elders have now come to accept that it is OK for the churches not to preach the everlasting Gospel. And what can be more divisive than a minister who does not preach the Gospel. What can be more spiritually dangerous than a man who claims and is accepted to be a Gospel minister in a 'Gospel' church refusing to preach the Gospel? That is massively divisive. But it is not deemed to be divisive because no one creates a stir about a non-Gospel preaching minister. And the church authorities are content to tolerate such a situation.

And all because their church requires of them not to follow a divisive course. What if Luther, who preached from the Bible as we are supposed to do, had have taken that approach to church life; would the reformation ever have taken place? Had Calvin been content to let things go on as they had done, would the reformation ever been organised? What if the Huguenots and Covenanters and Puritans had taken this advice and 'followed no divisive course,' where would the church have gone?

Ask yourself this: if every church member and elder was like me, how long would the Gospel survive in your church?

Church of Scotland's Moderatoress Laughs at Knox!

The Church of Scotland's Moderatoress, Mrs Lorna Hood, has taken a swipe at John Knox (1514-1572), the man attributed with having brought the Protestant reformation into the Church in Scotland.

Knox was a reformer by nature, and it was his Calvinistic convictions that drove him to seek the reformation of the church in Scotland.  Having studied in Geneva under Calvin (1509-1564), claiming that the academy there was "the most perfect school of Christ since the days of the apostles," he learned from Scripture the Presbyterian form of church government (not to be confused with what is being passed off as Presbyterian church government today), and brought his learning back to his native Scotland, successfully reforming the church of his day. He was quoted as referring to the "the monstrous regiment of women," the reference being directed primarily at Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I.

Now, the church that he founded has a member of that "monstrous regiment" as Moderatoress, and she dismisses Knox's view on women in leadership with a smile. She knows he would not approve of this ecclesiastical move, but n entering the Assembly Hall she has to pass Knox's statue, and can see nothing but the funny irony of so doing.

Given the clear prohibitive teaching of Scripture on women's ordination to the Christian ministry, every church that blatantly defies biblical teaching and those who accept it have been swallowed up by theological liberalism. And in order to be swallowed up by theological liberalism, one has personally to swallow this religious lie. Sadly, many reformed evangelicals have done just that! And in accepting the rightness and legitimacy of liberalism as one interpretation of the Bible, they have quite easily moved on to embrace the Roman principle that "the church is always right." Luther was strongly advised to "Listen to the Church" just after he nailed his 95 theses to the chapel door at Wittenburg.

Any Christian who "listens to the church" and not to Scripture has already apostacised from the church of Jesus Christ because the has departed from God's Word to the church. Only apostate church's will defy God and ordain women and non-Christians to the Christian ministry. Only apostate churches will accept into church membership for life and on profession of faith without a mechanism to review such professions those whose faith proves to be false. And the wholesale acceptance of members on profession of faith results in non-Christians becoming ministers, and now in Scotland holds the position of Moderatoress. These are the churches that know better than the Lord of the Church who said that women are not to hold such office as elder - it is for men only.

But to get back to Hood and Knox, for anyone to speak well of Knox in the one breath and then to make him the subject of derisory humour is extremely serious. Where are the CoS's evangelicals? Why aren't they screaming from the rooftops at such irreverence? How can they remain within such a denomination, one that accepts the pagan religion called liberalism on a par with biblical truth? As J. Greshem Machen put it, Liberalism and Christianity are two very different religions. Yet in today's spineless and faithless churches, keeping in with the current fashion is more important that maintaining biblical truth. Spurgeon is right: those who marry today's fashion will be tomorrow's widow.

In Ireland. the CoS has a daughter church, namely, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI). Has the Church of Scotland embraced theological liberalism? So has PCI. Therefore, has the CoS preached soul-damning liberalism. So has PCI. Has the CoS embraced same sex marriage? So has PCI - in principle, for she has at least one elder who publicly supports same-sex marriage, yet he still holds his office. Has the CoS persecuted evangelical ministers? So has PCI, and is still doing so.

Yet evangelical church ministers and elders and members are prepared to defend their church to the death against any criticism to the contrary, and continue to support such a religious aberration with their last pound. They hold Knox and his like high, yet they tolerate those who deny Knox's theology and evangelistic zeal. May the Lord show us His mercy.

Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Eph.5:25

Reflecting on what J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray affirmed, I searched the Doctor’s published sermons on Eph.4 where Paul deals with the doctrine of the church, especially her unity.  I was disappointed not to find any reference there to Christ dying for the church in that chapter.  I then read the entire letter of Paul to the Ephesians and there discovered that he dealt with the issue of the atonement within the context of Christian marriage.  The atonement was not his major focus in these expositions, however; his focus was on the Christian understanding of marriage.  This was positioned within the immediate context of the Christian’s responsibilities as a wife, husband, child and employee.[1]  Even when dealing with a subject as practical as marriage, Paul cannot exclude the consideration of doctrine, especially the doctrine of salvation.

Among the very first things he preaches on Eph.5:25-33 is his understanding of the love of God.  He sees it both in particularistic terms and in its universalistic sense.  He writes, “It is the same sort of love wherewith Christ loved the church; indeed, wherewith God loved the world.”[2]  He draws attention to the fact that this is the same Greek root that is used for God’s love (αγαπαω) both in Jn 3:16 and in Eph.5:25.  The love with which Christ loved the church is identical to the love with which God loved the world.  DML-J demonstrates particularism and universalism in his choice of words.  The love with which God loved the world is a love that loved the ugly, the vile, the ungodly, the sinful, the weak, the guilty and condemned.  It was a love that moved outward to another.  This is not a sentimental love, but a love that acted for the good of another/others; it was a love that gave. 

So to teach how husbands are to love their wives, Paul uses the illustration of how Christ loved the church – he gave and gave and gave again.  Christ’s love is a giving love, an outgoing love, a redemptive love.  His love has a particular object – the church.  Christ had already loved the church and had given Himself for her.  God loved the world and gave His only begotten Son for it, indicating that it was precisely the same love each time.  What He did for the world, He did also for the church, and vice versa.  Personalising what He did for the church by giving Himself for her salvation, DML-J proceeds to apply this to the individual, adding, “[Y]es but also ‘for me’, for every one of us as individuals.”[3]  “Every one of us as individuals” is included in Christ’s atoning work on Calvary. 

Bearing in mind that the context here is Christian marriage and the character and quality of the love that a husband ought to show to his wife, DML-J reiterates what he describes as “supreme doctrine ... no higher doctrine.”  A Christian husband is to love his wife sacrificially and without consideration for himself or his welfare.  His love for her is to be exclusive of all others, particular.  I remember hearing Dr John MacArthur[4] translating 1 Tim.3:2 on the qualifications of an elder, that he should be “a one woman man,” more familiarly, “the husband of one wife.”  The relationship is to be exclusive.  DML-J says, “- all that the Lord Jesus Christ did, he did for the church.”  There is no dispute here on either side of the soteriological debate, and DML-J is accurately reflecting what the great apostle Paul had written.  He continues, “He died for the church; He died for nobody else.”[5] 

These are clear and strong words from the Doctor, and, out of their context, they spell out an equally clear particularist understanding of the atonement.  But again his purpose in writing this is to demonstrate from the highest possible source the quality of love with which husbands ought to love their wives.  It is to be a particular love that is focused on their chosen spouses.  Christian men are to choose their love, and then to love their choice – exclusively.  That there is a particularity in God’s and Christ’s love is not disputed, and Paul brings this out here.  By extension, there is also to be a particular love of a husband for his wife.  Election undergirds what the apostle is writing, and election has to do with prior choice. 

It is important to note that when DML-J speaks about Christ dying for the church, he nowhere denies that Christ died only for the church, although the accompanying phrase, “nobody else,” in this sermon context has the potential to point in that direction.  Why, then, did he use this form of words here?  It was to teach these Ephesians, and therefore us, the exclusivity and particularity of marriage love. 

He uses this term in the sense that those whom Christ loved with this particular love and for whom He died effectually received incalculable benefits from that atoning death – they had their sins and guilt atoned for.  Wives also receive great benefits from being loved in that way by their husbands.   

This is not to deny that DML-J believed exclusively in an atonement that benefitted only the elect.  It is the quality of the divine love that is emphasised here.  Husbands are to show quality love to their wives – that’s the Doctor’s focus in these sermons.

But, and returning more directly to the atonement, DML-J had a great place in his evangelist’s heart those who made up the rest of mankind.  He goes on to teach that Christ also had a real, compassionate love for all men, and for these He died sufficiently and made atonement for their sins too.  To enter into the benefits of that atonement, they had to trust the Saviour.  For DML-J, Christ’s death was not a mere commercial transaction, a mere pecuniary act on His part; rather it was essentially forensic in character because it dealt with personal debt and guilt; pecuniary transaction dealt only with the impersonal.  In fact, in the same paragraph, DML-J uses the Lombardian paradigm to explain what he meant by these particularistic remarks.  Let him speak for himself.

His death, as Calvin and other expositors remind us, because it was eternal and because He is the Son of God, is sufficient for the whole world; but it is efficient only for the church. His purpose in dying was to redeem the church. He gave Himself for the church, for all who belong to her when she will be complete and perfect and entire. All was known to God from eternity, and the Son came, and gave Himself for the church.[6]

It was in this sense, and in this sense alone, that “He died for nobody else.”  Paul here safeguards the proper breadth of the Gospel, and DML-J does likewise.  Selective reading of the DML-J corpus is natural to dogma-driven theologians but it is essentially disingenuous and unjust for them to do so.  To infer from this that he believed about the atonement what Owen believed is quite erroneous, if not mischievous.  DML-J’s soteriology is balanced and gives due weight to the particular and universal emphases that are found in the actual text with which he is dealing.  This demonstrates his methodology when expounding the text of Scripture. He sticks to his text and says all it has to say.  And he does this with every text he handles, thus bringing out the due emphasis of that text in proper biblical balance.  It is interesting that J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray could only identify his exposition of two passages that they say indicate that DML-J taught limited atonement, and even this is open to question.  A careful reading of his sermons will demonstrate otherwise.  Great care must always be taken that we do not read into another man’s beliefs what we would wish was there, and isn’t.

It is unfortunate that DML-J went beyond what was written when he made this statement, “He died for nobody else,” a practice against which he constantly warned and a principle which at this point he contravened.  It is at least arguable that he allowed his mind to run off on a tangent, preaching as he did from the scantiest of notes; this does happen to preachers at times, especially those who speak in an extempore manner.  This is the only place that I know of where he has made such an extreme and uncharacteristic statement on the death of Christ, despite DML-J's ubiquitous universalism.[7]

As is well known, one or even two swallows do not make a summer, though the Murray's seem to think they do.  They have tried, unsuccessfully, to create an uncharacteristic DML-J position on the atonement in a way not dissimilar to what Pharaoh did to the Hebrews in Egypt where they were expected to make clay bricks without straw.[8]  The Murray's may have a little bit of clay, but they have no straw and they didn't end up with any bricks, either!

Further, it is of particular note that DML-J sees our salvation as something that God does for us and as something that actually happens to us.  It is experiential in character and is described in this sermon in terms of our being “rescued” and “redeemed.”[9]  Had it not been for the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the church, we would still be in our sins.  Once the sinner trusts in Christ’s finished work on Calvary, he experiences God’s gracious salvation.  Because election and predestination[10] are not experiential in nature, it is not these that bring the sinner into possession of the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ; it is the requirement that God has for faith in Christ that does it.  DML-J believes that it was the “precious blood” of Christ that purchased redemption for the world, but it does not become the possession of the elect automatically.  The salvific benefits of Christ’s blood have to be applied by the Holy Spirit and appropriated by the sinner by faith, which is the conduit for receiving it. 

Given that the vast majority of DML-J material on the atonement points in the universalistic direction, this very rare statement in fact proves the thesis I am presenting, and is the exception that proves the rule.  

Dr Alan C. Clifford, who knew the Doctor quite well for no less than eighteen years, explained why he thought DML-J used this uncharacteristic language (“He died for nobody else.”) in his exposition of Eph.5:25 which was delivered in 1959/1960.  At this time the high orthodox Banner of Truth Trust was just being set up, and DML-J was most keen to avoid any rifts with this new Reformed movement.  In an email to me, Clifford suspects that such caution drove him at this juncture.  “Whatever he published on paper, it remains true that he was 'uncomfortable' with LA [limited atonement]. In short, he didn't really believe it.[11]

So, the two passages alleged by J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray to support the view that DML-J believed and preached limited atonement have been found to prove nothing of the sort.  Taken out of context, it could be argued that this is what he believes and teaches.  But kept firmly within the context of his preaching and of these sermons, it has been shown that there was a breadth and width in DML-J’s soteriology that neither of these men would embrace.  Hence, it is pushing language much too far to claim that they and DML-J are on the same side of this controversy.

---

[1]    Eph.5:22-6:9.

[2]    Selection #107.

[3]    1974:145.

[4]    The meeting was held in Belfast, Northern Ireland in the early 1990s.

[5]    Ibid.

[6]    1974:145, 146.

[7]    Dr Alan C. Clifford in an email dated 17 August 2013.

[8]    Ex.5:18.

[9]    1974:146.

[10]  These undergird and guarantee the success of the Gospel in the world.

[11]  Clifford, dated 27^th July 2013.

THE BARTHOLOMEW LEGACY - Remembering the Martyrs

THE BARTHOLOMEW LEGACY

Remembering the Martyrs

But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

(Galatians 4: 29)

Dr Alan C. Clifford

Introduction

No, this is not about Bartholomew’s maps, nor about Barts Hospital in London. Neither can we aim to provide a biblical character study about the Apostle Bartholomew. Indeed, nothing at all is said about him in the New Testament apart from listing him among the apostles. Yet, during the early twentieth century, his name was known outside the circles of cartographers, tourists and medics. 

One can imagine a scenario somewhere in the West of England in 1923, where a Sunday school teacher tried to introduce his or her pupils to the twelve apostles. On declaring that the Bible tells us absolutely nothing about Bartholomew, an observant lad interjected with “I saw Saint Bartholomew a few days ago!” “Oh where?” To which the lad replied to the startled teacher, “Saint Bartholomew came through with the Cheltenham Flyer express” [the GWR’s new prestige train]. Our young train-spotting scholar then added excitedly, “I got the number - 2915!” 

Yes, we know more about G. J. Churchward’s famous Great Western Railway 2-cylinder, 4-6-0 Saint Class steam locomotives than we know for sure about the ‘saint’ himself. (Incidentally, 2914 was Saint Augustine and 2917 was Saint Bernard, not to ignore that 2923, 2913, 2920 and 2927 were Saints George, Andrew, David and Patrick respectively). Sadly, the superstition of ‘patron saints’ survives long after the last of these engines were scrapped in 1953. For the record (with some thematic link to our subject), Saint class 2903 Lady of Lyons (built in 1907) is credited with an unconfirmed 120 mph on a trial run. (One wonders if the current rebuild of a Saint at the GWR centre at Didcot might lead to a challenge to Mallard’s 1938 world speed record for steam of 126 mph). Whether or not the actual ‘Lady of Lyons’ was a saint (unlike 2904 Lady Godiva), the city of Lyons is associated with early persecution of Christians (177 AD) and later martyrdoms of Huguenots (1553, 1572).  

Apart from legends about his mission to India and Armenia, and his eventual horrific martyrdom (it is said he was flayed alive before being beheaded, miraculous healing properties being later claimed for his skin, hence the link with medicine), nothing is known for sure about the Apostle Bartholomew. Not to forget that imperial Rome was sacked by Alaric the Goth on 24 August 410, the medieval Roman Church appointed this calendar day for the Festival of St Bartholomew. Ironically, it was the later persecuting activities of the Roman Catholic Church that associated St Bartholomew with a most appalling atrocity that bears his name.

TWO BLACK BARTHOLOMEWS

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, following the Protestant Reformation, two outrages were committed against good and faithful Christian people on 24 August. The first - in 1572 - was against French Huguenots (Reformed Christians, Calvinists), thousands of whom were butchered by Roman Catholics in Paris and beyond. This terrible event is known as the St Bartholomew Massacre. Queen Elizabeth I went white as she heard the news. 

 

The second - in 1662 - was against English Puritans or Nonconformists (Reformed Christians, Calvinists), when around 2,000 godly pastors were ejected from their churches by the then recently-restored Church of England. Queen Elizabeth’s church (in the hands of ‘secret Catholic’ King Charles II) repeated the intolerance of the Pope’s church. Both atrocities led to much suffering and injustice.

These two expressions of ‘politically-correct’ religious tyranny (Roman Catholic and Anglican) reveal the darker side of Christian history. In the long battle between the Light and darkness, it has always been ‘right forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne’. Yet, in His sovereign wisdom and providence, Almighty God uses such atrocities to promote His everlasting kingdom, as surely as the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son brought salvation to the world.  

THE FRENCH BARTHOLOMEW

First, the facts:

1. The spread of the Reformation in France saw numerous conversions among the nobility as well as the general population. Among John Calvin’s numerous correspondents was Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France.

2. After a decade of religious war (following the massacre of a Reformed congregation near Vassy by soldiers of the Catholic Duke of Guise), a peace-promoting marriage between the Protestant Henry of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France) and Margaret of Valois, sister of King Charles IX took place at Notre-Dame, Paris on 18 August 1572.

3. The Protestant aristocracy were invited for the occasion, including Admiral Coligny. Much admired by the young Charles IX, he proposed policies which advanced the interests of both the French monarchy and the French Reformed Church.

4. Jealous and fearful of this influence, the Duke of Guise and the queen mother Catherine de Medici hired an assassin to kill Coligny. An attempt while the Protestant leader was walking the streets of Paris failed, only leaving him wounded. Gravely concerned, Charles IX promised an investigation and punishment for the plotters.

5. The king’s sympathy created panic among the Catholics, who did all they could to counter Coligny’s influence. Catherine, the Duke and Henri de Anjou (later Henri III) managed - after prolonged psychological pressure - to persuade the feeble-minded monarch that Coligny was really a threat to royal power. On Saturday evening, 23 August, confused Charles lost his temper: “If you want to kill Coligny, I agree, but then kill all the other Huguenots, so that no one will be able to blame me on account of his death!”

6. At 3 am, the Duke and his men surprised and assassinated Admiral Coligny at his lodging. Mortally wounded, he was thrown from his window, his head being kicked on the ground by the Duke. All the other Protestant leaders were killed by the royal guard. Sadly, the young Henry of Navarre instantly professed to be a Catholic to avoid death. While returning to the Reformed party soon afterwards (his evangelical convictions yet doubtful), this was sadly a ‘conversion’ he repeated in later years to gain the crown of France. 

7. Urged on by priests and nuns, the Paris mob attacked Huguenots in their homes for three consecutive days. In the ensuing horror, it is estimated that at least ten thousand lost their lives in the city. The streets flowed with blood and dead bodies were thrown into the Seine. Urged on by Charles and Catherine, the atrocity spread to the provinces. The total number of victims is hard to estimate accurately - 30, 000 might be a conservative figure. It should be said that the Bishop of Lisieux forbad such killing in his diocese. But he was a rare exception.

Second, who were the guilty?

Charles IX surely. He was no match for all the intrigue surrounding him. Yet clearly overwhelmed with remorse, this weak individual suffered acutely. Two years later he died in agony, seeing blood everywhere. Refusing to see his mother at his death bed, he found a measure of comfort through his faithful Huguenot nurse. Catherine herself, a political schemer, had been married to an unfaithful Henri II. An Italian Catholic, and disciple of Machiavelli, she ruthlessly retained her influence. She hated Henri of Navarre and the Protestants, yet died unhappy and almost unnoticed in 1589. Providing the real dynamic behind the Bartholomew massacre, the Duke of Guise was a fanatical Catholic. His partner in the crime, Henri de Anjou, later Henri III, eventually turned against the Duke, having him assassinated at Blois in 1587. Then there’s the Paris mob. Hating their Protestant neighbours for their godly and prosperous life-style, they were stirred up by fanatical priests to kill and plunder. With all restraint gone, the basest human instincts took over.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy was the chief culprit in the atrocity. Always in favour of persecution, the Vatican viewed religious toleration as an unpardonable sin. Pope Pius V had written accordingly to King Charles IX in 1569:

Your majesty must consider as certain that this (namely the restoration of public order) will never take place, as long as the whole kingdom will not accept unanimously and keep faithfully the one and same Catholic religion. In order to reach that goal with God’s help, it is necessary that Your Majesty act without mercy against God’s enemies, his own rebellious subjects, and punish them with the rightful pains and torments stated by the law (cited in Jules M. Nicole, ‘Black Bartholomew’, Christian Graduate, December 1972 (25: 4), 111).

Although Pope Pius V had died by the time of the Bartholomew massacre, his successor Gregory XIII welcomed news of the event, ordering Te Deums to be sung in all the churches. He also had an infamous medal struck to commemorate the Church‘s triumph over ‘heresy’. 

Naturally, King Philip II of Spain rejoiced that Protestantism had been thus suppressed in France. His own scheme to humble Queen Elizabeth I and Protestant England found eventual fruition in the Spanish Armada of 1588, a scheme which, in the merciful providence of Almighty God, ended in ruin.

Not all Catholic princes rejoiced. The Emperor Maximilian II, Charles IX’s father-in-law expressed deep sorrow over the cruelty displayed. Even Charles’ wife, daughter of the emperor, the devoutly-Catholic Elizabeth of Austria pleaded tearfully with her husband that some Protestants who had taken refuge in her room might be spared. The liberal and tolerant Chancellor of France, Michel de l’Hospital was so overwhelmed with grief that he died shortly after the massacre.

Third, what effect did the massacre have on the Lord’s Reformed people in France?

Having observed that over many years the French Reformed churches had provided ‘a vast multitude of most zealous and faithful martyrs, far more in number and quality of sufferers for the Gospel, than in any one of the Reformed Christian nations in Europe’, the English Presbyterian historian of the Huguenots, John Quick (1636-1706) provides a judicious and moving assessment of the aftermath:

The churches after the Parisian massacre were at a stand. That deluge of Protestant blood, which was then shed had exhausted their best spirits. Multitudes were frighted out of their native land, ... and others were frighted out of their religion. In such a dreadful hurricane as that was, no wonder if some leaves, unripe fruit, and rotten withered branches fell to the earth, and were lost irrecoverably. However, a remnant escaped, and, which was no less than a miracle, generally the ministers, God reserving them to gather in another harvest. And the churches in many places revived. God staying the rough wind in the day of His east wind, and giving them a breathing time, a little reviving under their hard bondage (Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 1692, i, p. lx).

John Quick goes on to outline the sad effects of Henri of Navarre’s ‘Paris is worth a mass’ apostasy by which he obtained the throne of France as Henri IV in 1593 . Yet never entirely forgetting his former Protestant friends, he granted them the tolerant provisions of the Edict of Nantes in April 1598. In the decades that followed, the Reformed churches of France flourished until further persecution descended on them during the reign of King Louis XIV. However, we may conclude that this history assures us beyond all doubt the truth of our Saviour’s words that, despite all the persecution of all the ages, ‘the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church’ (see Matt. 16: 18), the true Church of the Reformation and all who faithfully profess the pure truth of the everlasting Gospel.

THE ENGLISH BARTHOLOMEW

Following the end of the Cromwellian era, pent up resentment and revenge burst on the heads of the Puritans. Their attempts to complete the English Reformation proved a disappointment. The restoration of Church and Monarchy prompted appallingly brutal persecution. The regicides were arrested and disembowelled. The Act of Uniformity, coming into force on St Bartholomew’s Day, 24 August 1662, drove around two-thousand puritan clergy from their livings. Many were to experience imprisonment. The day was known as ‘Black Bartholomew’. Clearly the date was deliberately chosen, an intimidating reminder of the French Bartholomew massacre ninety years earlier. J. C. Ryle said of the Act of Uniformity:

Taking all things into consideration, a more impolitic and disgraceful deed never disfigured the annals of a Protestant Church. ... To show the spirit of the ruling party in the Church, they actually added to the number of apocryphal lessons in the Prayer Book calendar at this time. They made it a matter of congratulation among themselves that they had thrust out the Puritans, and got in Bel and the Dragon (‘Richard Baxter’ in Light from Old Times, 1890, 1902 rep. 316-7).

Led by Richard Baxter and others, the Presbyterians made up around two-thirds of this godly company. They were the ‘cheated party’. Being honourable monarchists and moderate revolutionaries did not shield them from the wrath of King and Bishop. They had the misfortune to trust the word of a King who had few of his father’s virtues but several of his vices. Having promised ‘liberty to tender consciences’ at Breda in 1660, Charles soon forgot such seeming magnanimity by the time he reached London. However, with the Restoration, the fruits of the Puritan Revolution were not entirely lost. The new monarchy was never to have the power of the old. The Star Chamber and the High Commission were never revived. Taxation was never again levied without parliamentary consent. 

If England was safe from anarchy, she was not secure from the relentless intrigue of the Roman Catholic Church. While Puritans suffered for nearly thirty years, England’s Protestantism remained threatened. However, even the Cavalier Parliament was too strongly Protestant for King Charles II whose sympathies for popery were known. Indeed, in 1670, the King entered into a treaty with Louis XIV of France to curb the aspirations of the Dutch Calvinist, William of Orange. 

Unknown to Charles’ protestant ministers, the secret clause of the shameful Treaty of Dover (1670) was signed by the Catholic members of the Cabal, Lords Arlington and Clifford. Louis hereby promised to supply Charles with French troops and money if, at an opportune time, Charles would declare himself a Roman Catholic. The article’s chilling words actually read: ‘The King of Great Britain being convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, is determined to declare himself a Catholic...as soon as the welfare of his realm will permit.’

CONCLUSION

If Englishmen had retreated from the anarchy and repression of the revolutionary era, they were not about to forget the danger of Romanism. Parliament maintained the necessity of a protestant church and a protestant monarchy. Roman Catholic influence in the persons of Charles II and James II - the sons of Henrietta Maria - was firmly checked. After the failure of the ill-fated Monmouth rebellion of 1685, it was the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 that finally ensured a protestant constitution and succession when William and Mary ascended the throne. Constitutional monarchy thus replaced Stuart absolutism. Protestant safeguards were enshrined in the Bill of Rights (1689) and later in the Act of Settlement (1701). With the passing of the Toleration Act (1689), persecuted Nonconformists became legally-worshipping Protestant Dissenters. 

With the aid of Huguenot regiments formed from refugees driven out of France at the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), William of Orange finally rescued this country from the popish menace when he defeated James II at the battle of the Boyne in 1690. During the eighteenth century, England’s Protestantism was reinforced by the Methodist Revival. Until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 and the restoration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales in 1850 (after which Cardinal Manning effectively declared war on protestant England), one may say that the zealous Protestantism of Puritan England continued to exert its liberating power.

Three centuries later, in an age of ecumenical and multi-faith apostasy, we must ensure by God's grace that the essential protestant legacy of the puritan period is maintained. We dare not imagine that the Church of Rome has changed: as surely as she meddled in British politics in the seventeenth century, so she is active in the heart of Europe today.  In view of the UK visit of Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, we cannot deny that these dark forces are still at work. Let us never forget the significance of 24 August. May all who name Christ as Lord and Saviour (and others who value religious liberty) be careful to honour His godly servants of the Reformation era, determined still to ‘contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

POSTSCRIPT

Dr Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) published An Abridgement of Mr Baxter’s History of His Life and Times with An account of the Ministers...who were Ejected after the Restoration of King Charles II (1702). Integral with his ministry, Calamy clearly felt called of God to transmit the heroic faith of Baxter and his brethren: “To let the Memory of these Men Dye is injurious to Posterity”. His Abridgement involved great courage, and it provoked a storm. At a time of continuing Anglican-inspired hostility to the heirs of the Puritans, this inspiring material marked out Edmund Calamy as ‘the Champion of Nonconformity’.

Apart from modest attention from nonconformist scholars, Dr Calamy is a largely unsung hero of a depressing period in English church history. While he never had the impact of his hero Richard Baxter (and how many could claim that until George Whitefield appeared in 1735?), Calamy shared most of Baxter’s convictions, a good deal of his piety and an equally-strong pastoral and evangelistic commitment. In addition, besides documenting the sacrifice of the ejected ministers of 1662, he perhaps more than any other preacher and theologian transmitted Baxter’s wonderful legacy to the eighteenth century and beyond.