The Claims of Christ Asserted

The church of Jesus Christ appears in scripture under many images and descriptions.¹ Among other things, we find it likened to a temple, an olive tree, a bride, and a kingdom. Each image paints a different, but complementary perspective or emphasis regarding the church’s nature, work, and calling. Though there are nuances and shades of meaning unique to each of these images and descriptions, none of them implies an idea of independence. The temple has a foundation, the olive tree has a stock and roots, the bride has a husband, and the kingdom has a king.

Jesus Christ is all. Without him, the church ceases to be. He is her redeemer, life, and governor. While all in the church are united to Christ, the union Christ shares with his people is not one of equality. That is, Christ remains supreme and primary in the union. As branches depend upon the vine, so believers depend upon Christ.

The church itself is an assembly of people under authority. While all Christians consent to this truth, dramatic differences of the extent, specificity, and application of this authority exist. Throughout her history the Reformed church has clearly expressed this understanding in its confessional documents and subordinate standards. While in most points these documents remain unchanged, even a passing glance at the Reformed church today reveals a large disharmony between theory and practice, that is, between her professed embrace of the Reformed symbols and her actual behavior.

It is common to hear the cry for liberty today where differences exist between the church and her confession. The difficulty with this is that the very confession addresses the claim of liberty. In other words, the confessions explicitly oppose the cry for such liberty. The Reformed symbols are clear on their understanding of matters of indifference or adiaphora, but they neither apply, nor do they permit, the application of such labels to current trends in doctrine, worship, and practice. Consider entertainment and recreation on the Sabbath. These are, according to the Westminster Confession, sin. Offering unauthorized worship to God is outlawed. Any aspect of our works entering the ground of our justification is forbidden, and the religious observance of holydays is iniquity. Contemporary churches that subscribe to the Westminster Confession justify such current deviations as improvements.

But, how is one to determine whether these deviations are improvements or impairments? Each side presumes they are on the side of truth. Quite simply, any appeal must go beyond church confessions, theologians, or creeds. It must transcend councils and patristics. It must go to the source itself, namely the scriptures. These alone truly reveal and infallibly convey Christ’s unchanging mind to his people of every culture and age.

The church possesses the duty to assert the claims of Christ he has made in his word. She is to be a faithful ambassador and a loyal subject to her king. To do otherwise is not merely deficient, it is rebellion. Historically, these assertions were provided in sermons, treatises, creeds, and confessions. By such means the Reformed church asserted her understanding of Christ’s mind. She founded her doctrine, worship, and practice upon the scriptures. It would be difficult to find a more illustrative statement of this adherence to scripture than what is found in the opening chapter of the Westminster Confession, section six:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men…

The same Confession affords the highest authority to the scriptures alone in section ten:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

These sections limit our source of doctrine, modes of worship, church government – in short, all our religion – to the scriptures alone. The Shorter Catechism expresses this simply in its second question, “What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him? The word of God which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.”

Many congregations and denominations today subscribe to these standards and thereby profess to limit themselves to the doctrine and worship prescribed and countenanced in scripture alone. It would seem reasonable to expect that a visit to any of these congregations would find an assembly upholding and adhering to the teachings they profess. Even when we allow for understandable diversity, e.g. lapsarian and eschatological differences that still fall within the boundaries of the standards, it is nothing short of perplexing when one considers the actual differences that exist.

One can walk into a church that claims to uphold the teachings of scripture as represented by the Westminster Confession only to find the evening service cancelled for a Super Bowl viewing party. Another can find a congregation which has installed images of Christ to promote pious reflections. These are not encounters with a reasonable diversity within the Reformed tradition. They are departures from that tradition. Whatever one may say about the cultural relevance of these efforts, they are rejected by the Westminster standards, and – more importantly – at odds with the mind of Christ.

This is not to question the Christian faith of those who differ from the standards, it is simply to note that theoretical agreement but practical disagreement with the standards is increasingly common. Because of this, renewed efforts must be made to reassert the claims of Christ as done at the Reformation. The Reformed church as it exists today requires reformation. The doctrine, practice, and worship of the church must again come under the authority of Christ’s word.

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)² stands in a unique position for this labor. She contends that the original Westminster standards represent a more faithful understanding of the Reformers’ doctrine and practice. However, and more to the point, she contends that the standards better assert the claims of Christ made in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments than do the current deviations from the standards. She has not grown weary of the old paths, nor has she departed from them. As evidence, she still demands all her officers to answer the following questions with an affirmation:

Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God; and do you acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith; and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain, and defend the same, and the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church?³

However, the ultimate question before us is not, “What does the Free Church believe?” Rather, the question is, “Is the exclusive limitation to Scripture, as articulated by the Confession, warranted?” Many churches may claim that these are but antiquated and erroneous statements. Others may write off such commitments as overreactions to various abuses of the past. Additionally, many may claim that such questions distract the church from her main mission, or that they introduce division into an already fractured body. Would it not be better and more beneficial simply to join with an existing, and perhaps more influential body, and privately hold our convictions? Shouldn’t we find satisfaction in having a united confessional basis, whatever the differences in actual doctrine, worship, or practice?

Certainly we pray, labor, and long for the day when Christ removes all artificial divisions from the face of his visible church and the world witnesses a unified front from the church. But we have no hesitation in stating plainly that our allegiance to Christ forbids us from perpetuating this departure. It demands that we assert his claims to our generation and ensure that our practice conforms to his claims whatever the cost may be. To tolerate other than this in our midst is to tolerate rebellion to our king. Would such toleration be virtuous or treasonable?

This is admittedly a bold claim. It is measured and deliberate. It does not deny the faith of our brethren in other denominations. Nor does it imply that the Free Church is the only true church under heaven. We acknowledge that there are other denominations and members of them who far exceed us in their faith, hope, love, experimental knowledge of Christ, and in their zeal for his cause. However, our loyalty to Christ compels us to pray, labor, and worship as members of the Free Church. By God’s grace, and not without struggle and loss, she has maintained both the confessional and practical allegiance to Christ’s will revealed in scripture.

This will gain the ridicule and mockery of some, primarily from those who consider themselves Presbyterian or Reformed but hold no true devotion to all of Christ’s claims asserted by the church in her confessions. Dismissively, perhaps derisively, they will label the Free Church as “out of touch” or “antiquated.” If so they reveal that, as in earlier generations, there is a party self-identifying as Reformed, but of a different mind and approach than those set forth in scripture and the Reformed standards. These individuals defend their current rejection of Reformed doctrine and worship by parading early church forms of worship and liturgies, practices and doctrines. However, early worship forms mean forms existing prior to the Reformation, potentially reaching back to the third or second century. This, however, is a parade that proves nothing for our binding practice. It falls far short of Christ’s claim, for Christ’s claim is given solely and infallibly in the scriptures, not in the practice or liturgies of the second century.

This approach is nothing new. Summarizing a similar approach by the Anglo-Catholics against the Puritans of the 16th century, Principal John Macleod noted that the Anglo-Catholics:

were the professed champions and exponents of primitive Church Principles…With them, however, primitive did not mean more than patristic. They made their appeal to the Fathers, and forgot that those Fathers were themselves but the children of the Grandfathers. So what had only the authority of the Fathers fell short of being truly primitive. Their appeal did not carry them far enough back as it built on what was only patristic and not Apostolic….The principle, on the other hand, accepted by the Puritans was the recognition of, and the return to, the Scripture pattern in all the departments of Church life so far as this could be learned from the teaching and narrative of Holy Writ; and this reforming standard was accepted in Scotland.⁴

Considering the current confusion among many who claim to be Reformed, adherents to the Free Church, and those sympathetic with her, have been forced to search out answers. While searching the scriptures as the supreme authority, they have also consulted commentaries, treatises, confessions, and sermons. They have found faithful, scriptural, and theologically rich and robust answers from these sources. However, they have encountered an unexpected temptation: make a denomination, heritage, or theologian the answer to contemporary problems.

There is much for which to rejoice in the rediscovery of confessional Presbyterianism. It is hardly debatable that a volume of Rutherford is worth more than a year’s worth of current publications. Nothing surpasses the works of the 16th and 17th centuries for scriptural faithfulness, experimental life, and doctrinal precision. However, we easily slip into thinking that the precious truths we have discovered are merely Scotland truths, Westminster truths, or Rutherford truths. But, the claims are not from Scotland, Westminster, Rutherford, or the Free Church. These merely asserted the claims. The claims are far more important, for they are Christ’s.

Upon discerning this vital truth, one gains a new boldness, discovers a backbone, and the church again becomes an agent of holy change instead of cultural assimilation. Rediscovery recalibrates our consciences, improves our interactions with those who disagree, and cultivates a humble confidence and believing boldness in the face of opposition. The Reformed church must regain this relationship between Christ’s claim over his people’s faith and the church’s mandate to assert those claims.

The Claims of Christ Demonstrated

To demonstrate that Christ alone possesses exclusive authority over our faith, worship, and practice, and that his claims in these areas are our exclusive guide, we need look no further than our Lord’s Great Commission: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Mark 28:18-20).

The Commission begins and ends with a focus upon Christ. He identifies the right he has to make claims that the church must embrace, and he provides the clear demand for the church to hold fast to his teaching. The substance and scope of their teaching is governed and limited by “all things whatsoever I commanded you.” Beyond this, she may not venture; short of this, she may not fall. Her teaching must be as Christ has prescribed.

The church is governed in its teaching. This is not a new idea beginning at the Commission. Throughout the scriptures, God makes the same claim on his people. There is never a time when God’s people are at liberty to invent what they will believe or how they will worship. What is new is that the risen and ascended mediator now holds these as the incarnate and glorious head of the church.

The first recorded instance of God speaking to man is one of limiting him to obey his word. Upon creating man male and female, God gave them a command. As recorded in Gen. 2:16, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Even in his state of innocence, man is under the authority of his God.

Though much takes place between Genesis and Deuteronomy that is worthy of consideration and relevant to our topic, consider Deut. 5:32-33. Having rehearsed the Ten Commandments, the Lord addresses Moses, and provides him the following exhortation:

Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

Similarly, when Joshua was to lead God’s people into the Promised Land, the Lord gives him the same instruction with encouragement:

But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it. Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess (Josh. 1:32-33).

The same book later reiterates this: “Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left…” (Josh 23:6)

Space prevents considering other parallels. However, notice that this submission to God’s teaching by his word does not in the least diminish in the New Testament. Paul exhorted the elders by noting, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Paul was careful to present God’s mind to the elders. Could he have invented new doctrines or practices without divine warrant and still have included them in this description, “The counsel of God”?

Paul emphatically rooted his teaching on the nature and use of the Lord’s Supper in the Lord’s instruction (1 Cor. 11:23). “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…” This is a point worthy of consideration. The Lord’s Supper portrays to us the love of Christ crucified, “This is my body which is broken for you.” The emblem of Christ’s love is before the eyes, taken by hand, and eaten – demanding a most intimate exercise of faith. God’s grace is obvious in every consideration of this sacrament. Yet, far from giving us license to go and do as we might want with it, Paul tells us that precisely what he received from the Lord, he delivered to the Corinthians. Paul strictly conformed the administration of the Lord’s Supper to Christ’s institution of the sacrament.

When warning Timothy of evil men and seducers, Paul directed Timothy to the word of God:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

Instead of encouraging Timothy to think through new ways, develop new teachings, or incorporate new practices, he reminds Timothy that scripture alone is our unerring guide.

Skipping past other examples, at the close of Revelation, John records a sober testimony:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:18-19).

From Genesis to Revelation, God everywhere stipulates that the world, and particularly his church, is to be in submission to his word. Christ as her mediator and head holds a unique position over the church. Paul writes in Col. 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church…” and, similarly, in Eph. 1:22-23, that God, “hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Later in that epistle, Paul returns to that theme, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Eph 5:23).

To put it briefly, Christ stands supreme and alone exercising authority over the church. This is what makes his word so important to us. In it and by it, he commends to us his infallible teaching, promises of salvation, instruction for life and godliness; indeed, all that is necessary for a holy and devout life.

This must mean that the church, being the assembly of those called out of the world to the faith and service of Jesus Christ, stands in a position of submission to her Lord and Savior. Throughout the scriptures, the call for the church is to receive, believe, practice, defend, and maintain the claims of Christ Jesus. In short, the church is under authority, Christ’s authority, as expressed in his word.

It is one thing to note that the claims of Christ as provided by him in his word limit the church. What those claims are is another matter. It would be impossible to attempt a comprehensive and exhaustive detail of every individual claim.⁵ However, by giving attention to foundational claims Christ has made, the firm bedrock is established from which the rest of the structure may be built. In addition, by considering one particular claim, an illustration of the principle is provided to help understand how other claims may be asserted. In what follows, Christ’s claims over his house provide the foundation. Christ’s claims over his worship illustrates the principle. The purpose of what follows is not to demonstrate the exegetical ground for these claims, but to survey and illustrate the biblical claims and how the Free Church and those from her heritage asserted them. Furthermore this will contextualize the reason the Free Church continues its commitment to these positions.

1. Christ’s Claim over His House

The church is frequently described as the Lord’s house or dwelling place. In 1 Cor. 3:16, Paul writes, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” We read in 2 Cor. 6:16, “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” And we find in Heb. 3:6, “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of hope firm unto the end.”

These passages establish both God’s intimacy with his people and his authority over them. The relevant fact is that Christ claims the position of authority over his people. He is the exclusive head of the church.

Not only is this a reasonable and necessary inference, it is an explicit teaching in the scripture. In Eph. 5:23, Paul compares the headship of a husband to the headship of Christ: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” In Col. 1:18, he goes further and concludes that this headship gives him preeminence over all: “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Christ’s headship means that he has authority to establish what we must believe and how his house should be arranged. As head, he is the sole authority and source of what his church is to believe and do. Any attempt to undermine this authority should be met with the greatest opposition by his people. Certainly any systemic attempt should result in a united rejection by all in the Reformed church. However, as an example of how little Christ’s headship is regarded by our generation, consider that we find almost no concern about the Pope among many Reformed denominations today. They may treat his office as something of an aberration from scripture, but to publicly pronounce the office and denomination as an abhorrent abomination is nearly unheard of today. We have lost the ability to sympathize with our forebears who saw in the Papacy a wicked and direct usurpation of Christ’s solitary position as head of the church. However, when we see how the Papacy directly attacks Christ’s headship, we will find our hearts kindle with zeal for our Lord.

Historically, the Reformed in Scotland discerned the importance of this claim. One may see many of the struggles faced by those under the banner of Reformed as struggles for the sake of asserting this claim. In 1560, the year that saw the overthrow of Roman Catholicism after much sacrifice, prayer, and labor, the Reformed church spoke simply of, “…Christ Jesus, who is the only Head of the Kirk…”⁶ 1560 only represented one season of asserting this claim, an assertion against both the Pope and the king intruding upon the government, faith, and worship of Christ’s church. There have been many enemies against Christ. In the heritage of the Free Church, the Papacy and Prelacy have been two of the foremost.

The church asserted this claim against the Pope most clearly in our Confession, chapter 25, section 6, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense, be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

In 1847, the Free Church approved a catechism to teach and inculcate the principles precious to her.⁷ This catechism shows the unity shared between the Free Church and the church of 1560, and identifies a unified opposition to the Pope’s claims from the 16th through the 19th centuries: “from the beginning she maintained that it was Christ’s place that the Pope had usurped in the Church, and she resisted all attempts on the part of others to intrude into it.”⁸ In the next question, “What is the substantial import of her anti-Papal testimony for the headship of Christ?” the catechism supplies the answer:

The substance of it is, that the Pope is that Man of Sin who—opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God—usurps the place of Christ as Head of ordinances, of knowledge, of influence, and of authority in the Church.” This is considered the testimony of the first Reformation.⁹

The Free Church is not unique in this debate when one surveys the history of the Reformed witness. Each Reformer agreed to this position, as a survey of commentaries and sermons on 2 Thess. 2:3-12 easily demonstrates. The Free Church is unique in its present assertion of this claim, that is, Protestant denominations have largely abandoned this conviction today, and, to no surprise, they look on the Papacy as an error, but perhaps irrelevant or misguided. The Free Church, however, maintains its determination to expose, resist, and denounce the claims of this ultimate earthly and spiritual antagonist, for the Papacy seeks to remove the crown from off the true king.

The Pope, or more particularly, the Papacy was not the only enemy against whom the Free Church felt it necessary to assert the claims of Christ. Prelacy, which places the government of the church in the hands of superior bishops overseeing other pastors, was resisted unto blood. This was one of the great struggles of the 1600’s, in many ways addressed at the Assembly of 1638. The catechism articulates the concern by connecting it to Christ’s headship:

“Why say you that the Church of Scotland’s testimony against the system of Prelacy is a testimony for the Headship of Christ?” “Because ordinary pastors and presbyters are deprived by that system of the ecclesiastical power and authority which Christ, as head of ordinances, has attached to their office; and because it has, in every age, and to a great extent, been accompanied by claims and pretensions inconsistent with the prerogatives of Christ, as Head of ordinances, of knowledge, of influence, and of authority.”¹⁰

In other words, the struggles faced in Scotland were not over petty differences. Church government, and particularly the question of who holds authority in the church, was not a matter of mere preference or custom. This is what many today do not understand. The blood shed in Scotland over these matters was blood shed in defense of Christ’s kingly headship.

The importance of Christ’s headship over the church serves as a lens by which to read the history of the Scottish church. John Macleod explains:

The Scottish doctrine of the Church Visible is in no salient feature different from the common faith of Reformed Christendom. And yet in Scotland it came to hold such a place of control as that it is largely in connection with the application and working out of this doctrine that the most remarkable struggles and discussions of national Church life have taken place. It regards the Church in its visible form as a Kingdom with a King of its own. The King is not a mere absentee monarch nor is He only a figurehead. He is looked upon as the Head of the Church as it is His acknowledged realm. The avowal on the part of His confessing subjects of His Headship, and so of their subjection to His authority, is of such a kind as to leave the Church in its corporate form as a recognised society under the obligation to accept His Word as the regulative authority that calls for its obedience. Thus His revealed will is its ultimate seat of authority on earth, and the true freedom of the Church is attained and enjoyed when it is subject to no sovereign will but His and finds delight in compliance with His behests. His Word it takes to be His, and in it is found the exhibition of instruction and obedience of His subjects.¹¹

In other words, the studied, diligent, and constant attention and opposition to Papacy and prelacy was because these are direct attacks on Christ’s kingly office. A loyal subject does not sit idly by when his sovereign stands opposed. Thomas M’Crie articulates well the sentiment well:

Recognizing no earthly head, rejecting all earthly control, she stood forth the immaculate spouse of Christ; and holding in her hand the Word of God, as the charter of her rights, she pointed to her exalted King, seated on the throne of heaven. Placed on such a footing, the ministry of the gospel must command respect. ¹²

The well-known exchange between Queen Mary and John Knox in 1561 provides a fitting illustration:

Knox…took occasion to denounce the evils of idolatry from the pulpit, concluding his sermon with these remarkable words: ‘One mass is more fearful to me, than if ten thousand armed enemies were landed in any part of the realm, of purpose to suppress the whole religion.’ On hearing of this sermon, the queen sent for Knox, and held a long conference with him. She charged him with having taught the people to receive a religion different from that which was allowed by their princes. He replied that true religion derived its origin and authority, not from princes, but from God; that princes were often most ignorant on that point and referred to David, and to the primitive Christians…On hearing these bold sentiments, so different from anything that she had been accustomed to, Mary stood for nearly a quarter of an hour silent and amazed. At length, addressing the reformer, she said, ‘Weel, then, I perceive that my subjects shall obey you, and not me.’ ‘God forbid,’ answered he; ‘but my travail is that both princes and subjects obey God…¹³

The Free Church continues to assert this claim today. Although much of the Reformed church has breathed a collective sigh of indifference to the teaching that identifies the Papacy as the antichrist, the Free Church maintains it earnestly. The reason for this rests in her love for her king.

It is this allegiance to Christ’s will as exclusively revealed in the scriptures that provides the foundation from which to build the whole of our claims to assert today. The Reformed church of the 1600’s and the Free Church of the 1800’s onward did not assert and contend for these claims for any other reason but that they were the claims of her king who had spoken by his word.

2. Christ’s Claim over Worship

Few would deny that the church under the Old Covenant was obligated to uphold every ordinance of God delivered to them by revelation. However, under a misunderstood form of liberty, many today consider that worship is largely indifferent under the New Covenant. There are two problems in this assumption. First, it assumes that God has changed. It assumes that the God who delights in his worship and has reserved all right and glory in his worship to himself now intends to allow sinful creatures to decide what is acceptable in worship. Second, and related, it ignores the divine right of worship ordinances in both testaments.

As mentioned earlier, the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance most precious to believers. It displays the grace of God in a way perhaps peculiar to itself. If ever there was an ordinance that was a New Covenant ordinance, it is this. However, note with what care God’s word protects its institution. Paul shows no liberty to depart from the received instruction, “For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…” (1 Cor. 11:23). Similarly, neither did Timothy have liberty to consider whether or not he would preach, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Worship ordinances under the New Covenant are ordinances given by the king of the church. They stand unalterable.

The Scottish church gave particular attention to the claims of Christ in worship. The Free Church continues to do so today. Characterizing the worship of the church in Scotland, William Hetherington wrote:

With regard to public worship, the Presbyterian system is characterized by great simplicity and plainness. Many have censured the Presbyterian mode of worship as too plain—as not availing itself enough of those external means which tend to excite reverential emotion. But in this point, also, it took for its rule the simplicity of the Scriptures. The great idea presented in the Gospel is spiritual worship, free alike from multitudinous forms that cumber memory and distract the mind, and from a gorgeous apparatus that dazzles and beguiles the senses. Its object is to direct the eye of faith to the Saviour alone, and to fill the mind with nothing but sacred truth.¹⁴

Maintaining this conviction, the Free Church resists all innovations because such innovations come without authority from Christ. No church officer, private Christian, assembly, confession, or creed has the right to invent an article of faith or an ordinance of worship. As an illustration, consider the treatment of the Perth Assembly in 1618. In the Catechism we read as follows:

…in a packed Assembly, held at Perth in 1618, five articles were passed, introducing the observance of certain holidays (viz., Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost), the rite of confirmation, kneeling at the Lord’s supper, private baptism, and private communion…Were these articles complied with? By many they were not, being regarded as unwarranted by Scripture, and therefore passed in violation of the Headship of Christ.¹⁵

The General Assembly in 1638 formally rejected these articles. A note explains the opposition:

That there is Scripture warrant and example for one stated holiday in the Christian Church, namely, the first day of every week; that there is also Scripture warrant for occasional days of religious observance, whether as days of humiliation or thanksgiving, according to the Lord’s dealings with his Church and people; but that, beyond this, the authority of Scripture does not go; that, if God had intended that his Church should, in Christian times, have stated holidays over and above the weekly Sabbath, it may be believed that he would have appointed them, as he did in the case of the Old Testament Church, or, at all events, that there would have been some evidence that the apostles kept them; and that, for man to establish certain annual holidays, in addition to the weekly holiday which God has established, is an act of will-worship—is an assumption of the very power by which the Sabbath itself was instituted; and is therefore an infringement of the rights of Christ as the only Head and Lawgiver of the Church…¹⁶

To this may be appended the letter of General Assembly to Theodore Beza in 1566. Beza had sent a copy of the Second Helvetic Confession approved throughout Switzerland. The General Assembly of Scotland responded with much commendation:

We are therefore altogether compelled…not only to express our approval, but also our exceeding commendation of every chapter and every sentence. For that little treatise rests altogether upon the Holy Scriptures…This one thing, however, we can scarcely refrain from mentioning, with regard to what is written in the 24th chapter of the aforesaid Confession concerning the ‘festival of our Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending the Holy Ghost upon his disciples,’ that these festivals at the present time obtain no place among us; for we dare not celebrate any other feast-day than what the divine oracles have prescribed.¹⁷

Several things stand out as important in this response. First, this is the formal response of the General Assembly, and not a marginal party within the church. The representative body replied providing an understanding of the official position of the church. In other words this was not the response of an individual with extreme views. Second, the Scottish church saw itself in tremendous agreement with other Reformed churches, so there was unity. Third, the Scottish church realized it stood in a different position to worship ordinances, at least holydays, than did other Reformed churches. Fourth, the ground for this difference was not custom or habit but the prescription of scripture, Christ’s claims regarding worship. In one of his most famous sermons, John Knox puts the matter simply, “All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry.”¹⁸ This sentiment was not just Knox’s position; it was the Church’s position.

One of the most obvious points of difference with many today is the Free Church’s exclusive use of the psalms for the material of Christian praise. This, many say, is without warrant. However, when viewed with an eye to Christ’s claims, a different picture emerges. Never throughout all of scripture does one introduce an uninspired hymn into God’s worship. There is not one implication that we should do this. Instead, if we hold to the exclusive headship of Christ, we find his word solely countenancing the singing of “psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs.” Notice Eph. 5:18-19: “…be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord…” The only way to justify uninspired hymns is to rest on custom outside of scripture.

Hugh Martin shows our position well from a speech of his to General Assembly:

I can understand how the Word of God should dwell in us richly by singing the Word of God – dwelling on it in solemn, meditative, grave, sweet singing of it, till – to use a Scotch phrase – it seeps into the soul and takes it dwelling there, while in warm emotion of faith the worshipper’s spirit in believing song dwells deliberately upon it. Thus it may come to dwell richly in us…But how is God’s Word to dwell in us by singing man’s word?¹⁹

No one denies that uninspired hymns may include some rich thoughts, poetic beauty, and doctrinal integrity. However, just as we would resist a man walking into the pulpit to read Calvin’s writing in place of God’s word, so we resist a church taking up a man’s song to God’s praise.

Admittedly, this point proved to be a struggle for the Free Church, thus Martin’s speech on the floor of Assembly. After many struggles through the 19th century, the Free Church again asserted this position with great clarity. Free Church ministers Alexander Stewart and J. Kennedy Cameron chronicled the work of upholding the witness of Christ in the face of many trials in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They conclude their volume by asserting the Free Church position regarding praise. In their conclusion, they took up the matter of singing Psalms:

In the matter of public praise the Free Church confines herself to the words of Inspiration…The objections to the Psalter as a manual of New Testament praise are indeed in many cases of the most superficial character…The Psalms, for example, are often said to be deficient as a vehicle of evangelical truth and Christian feeling. Scarcely any charge could be more unfounded. The Psalms are full of Christ.²⁰

Although there are many objections today regarding the exclusive use of the Psalms in public praise beyond the scope of this paper, space may allow for one grand moment in Martin’s speech. Regarding the charge that singing Psalms leaves the believer with no ability to sing of Christ, Martin responds:

Shall we sing of the Incarnation? Psalm 40:6…Shall we sing of Christ’s faithfulness and zeal in duty? Psalm 69:9…Shall we sing of the sufferings of our dying Redeemer? Psalm 69:20…Shall we praise Christ for His ascension?…Sing we of Christ’s reward in glory?… of Christ’s intercession, and of his mediation generally?…Of Christ’s action in his prophetic office?…Shall we adore Christ in His priestly office?…What is there, sir, concerning Christ’s kingdom that is not celebrated in the Psalms in the language of fulfilment?…The Psalms are the grand catholic hymnal, and the singing of them provides for Christian union and for perfect catholicity.²¹

Beyond the exclusive singing of Psalms, the other prominent distinctive for the Free Church in worship is the absence of instrumental accompaniment. Perhaps many wonder, “Could anything be more cultural than this?” However, when we realize the headship over the church is exercised by Jesus Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, the position begins to take on a different light.

Our king has come as anticipated by types and shadows in the Old Testament. Among those types and shadows were the instruments instituted for the tabernacle and temple, to be played by the priestly class. This is an unavoidable fact in light of 1 Chron. 15:16-18, 16:37-42, and 25:1-7. There is no command or allowance for instruments in public worship throughout all the scriptures outside of these circumstances. This provides clearest warrant for setting aside these instruments in our public worship. Why? Because these were instituted for temple worship.²² This is the link in 2 Chron. 29:25-28. Notice the final two verses:

And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.

Just as we no longer offer incense or begin to consider offering a lamb in sacrifice, we no longer play instruments in God’s worship. Christ, the head of the church is no longer anticipated in types and shadows. He has come. The Free Church is convinced that playing instruments in worship is to oppose the fact that Christ has come. This was the point of Dr. Candlish, Free Church minister, when he stated:

I believe that it is a question which touches some of the highest and deepest points of Christian theology. Is the temple destroyed? Is the temple worship wholly superseded? Have we, or have we not, priests and sacrifices among us now? Is the temple or the synagogue the model on which the Church of the New Testament is formed? Does the Old Testament itself point to anything but ‘the fruit of the lips’ as the peace-offering or thank-offering of gospel times? Is there any trace in the New Testament of any other mode of praise? For my part, I am persuaded that if the organ be admitted, there is no barrier, in principle, against the sacerdotal system in all its fulness—against the substitution again, in our whole religion, of the formal for the spiritual, the symbolical for the real.²³

Just as vestments, incense, holydays, and sacrifices have ceased, so has the use of instruments in God’s worship. The only strings remaining to be plucked are the same strings that have always been and always will be, the strings of the heart: “singing and making melody [literally, “plucking”] in your hearts….” (Eph. 5:19).

The Free Church is aware that she currently holds the minority position. However, she is comfortable standing in the minority for the present, for she is not in the minority when the whole of history is considered. Additionally, the position is both right and safe. Stewart and Cameron well summarized the proven dangers of departing from Christ’s will and, in its place, introducing worship innovations:

That these features of modern worship make a powerful appeal to the natural minds is a fact which cannot be gainsaid. Whether they are at the same time pleasing to God is another question. Certain it is, at any rate, that once there is a departure from the simplicity of worship which is sanctioned in the New Testament Scriptures, it is difficult to draw the line in actual practice. Experience has proved that the element of praise in the services of the sanctuary tends more and more to degenerate into an exhibition of musical proficiency; the needs of the congregation for the vocal expression of thanksgiving are largely set aside; and the Father’s House is turned to a great extent into a place of entertainment.²⁴

In short, the shift from Christ’s will to man’s will shifts the focus from God’s glory to man’s glory. This is not accidental or coincidental, this is essential to the shift.

Conclusion

It may be suitable to address a couple potential objections before suggesting a few applications.

One asks, “Isn’t this to make secondary matters primary?” Such a question makes sense in today’s context. However to make secondary matters primary is to replace a doctrine like the Trinity with church government, or the good news of salvation by grace with the mode of baptism. For instance, if we were to say that one must sing the Psalms to be a Christian, we then make secondary matters primary. Or, were we to say that there is no true church under heaven but the church that holds to the teachings of scripture as confessed by the original Westminster Confession, this would again make secondary concerns primary. This in no way has been done.

Also, it is worth considering that secondary teachings from scripture are still important. Simply because a teaching is not required for salvation does not make the given teaching optional. A secondary matter is not synonymous with an indifferent matter or a matter of Christian liberty. Whether or not a Christian sings psalms in worship is not a matter of liberty. It is a matter commanded by the only head of the church. Whether or not one drinks soda, eats food sacrificed to idols, uses social media – these are matters of Christian liberty. One must be persuaded in his conscience informed by the word of God whether he does these, and they must be done in faith and in love. However, a secondary matter is not left to the liberty of the conscience.

Another may ask, “Are you not implying that the Free Church is superior in all points to all other churches?” No, the Free Church is not superior in all points to other churches. We are certain of this: there are men and women abounding in grace and Godliness in many denominations. This is beyond dispute. Historically you see it in J. C. Ryle, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones. However, the issue is not how devout or holy one may be.

The matter at hand is Christ and the claims he has set forth in scripture. The Scottish church was, in the Lord’s providence, privileged to lift the attainments higher in conformity to scripture. We must remember that the Reformation came to Scotland in the second and even third generation of its occurrence. There would be no Church of Scotland, without the work of Luther, Bucer, Bullinger, Calvin, and others. Their initial labor and mature reflection, coupled with the Lord’s provision to the church in Scotland, allowed for great gains.

Further, there were particular providences that took place in Scotland, that were not so in other nations. Trials have a way of forcing clearer thought. The false teaching of Arius allowed for clearer teaching by Athanasius. The errors of Pelagius brought forth the answers of Augustine. This is the case in all church history. In Scotland there were peculiar trials that forced greater attention to certain doctrines and practices. Additionally, the Reformation was established in Scotland differently than it was in many other nations. Note John Row’s explanation:

For this I wish all men to know, that the Reformation of Religion came in otherwise to Scotland than in other parts; because the Queen, who then had the autoritie, being a malicious enemie to God’s trueth, thought that sho should suppresse the Protestants in this kingdome, by the bringing in of Frenchmen to help the Papists, who were upon hir syde: yit the Lord disappoynted her. And sho dieing, the work of Reformation prospered; and the Ministers that were, took not their pattern from any Kirk in the world, no not fra Geneva itself; but, laying God’s word before them, made Reformation according thereunto, both in doctrine first, and then in discipline, when and as they might get it overtaken. But, in other places, (as England,) the Reformation coming in by the autoritie of the Magistrat, nothing could be gotten done but according to the Magistrat’s desyre; whilk hes bene the cause why other Kirks, professing the same trueth with us, yit had never the sinceritie of discipline amongst them, whilk is the thing that verie few Magistrats or great personages…can away with.²⁵

Hetherington says much to the same purpose:

The position which the Scottish Reformation was from the very first constrained to occupy, was one which rendered it necessary for the Reformers to look into the very heart of their enterprise, to adopt no principles but those on which they could peril life and all things, and to go forward with unswerving directness of aim and firmness of purpose. They had little, or rather no, temptation to compromise; for they were not encumbered with human help. Faith, that knew not doubt or fear; sincerity, that could not stoop to evasions; and piety, that leaned for support on God alone—these were their only elements of strength and hope. It was not, therefore, strange that such men, in such a juncture, should direct their attention with absolute singleness of eye to the word of God, and regard that as the only and supreme authority in all matters pertaining to religion…This, then, must be regarded as the very essence of the Presbyterian system, its primary principle as a sacred theory—THE SUPREME AND ALL-SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO RELIGION. In the strength of this great principle they set aside at once, and without hesitation, not only all mere tradition, though it might claim the veneration due to remote antiquity, but also all the submissive deference usually yielded to the authority and example of ancient and established institutions. Romish controversialists might appeal to the Fathers; Scottish Presbyterians answered them from Scripture. Rome might arrogate her own authority, as the mother and mistress of Christendom, to use her own proud style; Scottish Reformers bowed to no authority but that of God speaking in His Word.²⁶

So it is then, the Lord provided great blessings to the Scottish church by means of his great blessings to those who preceded them. In the end, it is not a matter of whether such a teaching came from Scotland, Switzerland, Germany, or the Netherlands. The question to ask is, “Did it come from heaven?” It is not a matter of whether it came from the Knox’s pulpit, Calvin’s pulpit, or Luther’s pulpit. Rather, did it come from Christ’s pulpit?

It is worth considering whether we who embrace these teachings take this essential point to heart. Do we see our testimony as uniquely Christ’s or uniquely Scottish? Do we see these as uniquely Free Church claims we must assert, or are they Christ’s claims we must assert? There is a significant difference. If we consider them merely Scottish or Free Church claims, our devotion will be to Scotland and the Free Church. However, if we see these claims as Christ’s claims, our devotion will be to Christ and his word. If we assert these claims because they are Christ’s, love to Christ will outstrip our love to his servants.

Consider with what confidence we ought to be filled for these things. If these are the claims of Christ, then we ought to assert these claims with the utmost of boldness. Yes, love and patience must prevail, but we must also maintain boldness in the face of opposition. When once we see that this testimony bequeathed to us as those in the Free Church is a testimony from the king, then we gain great encouragement. Does an individual oppose us? Does a government oppose us? Does the world oppose us? Let it be so. The ultimate king stands with us, for it is his testimony, his claim that we assert.

M’Crie relates a remarkable occurrence that has fed our wonder and well illustrates this point. In 1596 Andrew Melville approached King James. The king was reintroducing papal teaching and government. This the Reformed Church would not tolerate, and it would not do so, because a greater king reigned over and in them:

[Andrew Melville] took the king by the sleeve, and calling him ‘God’s sillie vassal.’ He proceeded to address him the following strain… ‘Sir,’ he said, we will always humbly reverence your majesty in public; but since we have this occasion to be with your majesty in private and since you are brought into extreme danger both of your life and crown, and along with you the country and the Church of God are like to go to wreck, for not telling you the truth and giving you faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty, or else be traitors both to Christ and you…I must tell you, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member…I say, you are not the head of the Church; you cannot give us that eternal life which we seek for even in this world and you cannot deprive us of it…Sir, when you were in your swaddling clothes Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land, in spite of all his enemies; his officers and ministers convened for the ruling and welfare of his Church, which was even for your welfare, when these same enemies were seeking your destruction.²⁷

With the claims of Christ before us, may the Lord fill us with love to him, love to souls, and boldness to assert these things in our own day.

Thy royal seat, O Lord,

for ever shall remain:

The sceptre of thy kingdom doth

all righteousness maintain.

Footnotes

1
This article is the substance of an address delivered in August of 2017 at the Family Conference of the Free Presbytery of the United States. It has been edited and revised for print. ↩︎
2
Henceforward, “Free Church.” ↩︎
3
Practice of the Free Church of Scotland (8th ed.; Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1995), 152. ↩︎
4
John MacLeod, Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 7. ↩︎
5
As originally presented, the address included four claims: over his house, his worship, our salvation, and the nations. ↩︎
6
The Confession of the Faith and Doctrine Believed and Professed by the Protestants of Scotland (trans. James Bulloch; Edinburgh: The Saint Andrews Press, 1984), 14. ↩︎
7
This catechism was originally composed primarily by Rev. Andrew Gray in 1845, but received unanimous sanction of the General Assembly in 1847 as “containing a valuable summary of this Church’s history, and exhibition of her distinctive principles, from the beginning of the Reformation to the present time…” Catechism on the Principles and Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: James Gemmell, 1822), p. iii. ↩︎
8
Catechism, Question 156. ↩︎
9
Catechism, Question 157. ↩︎
10
Catechism, Question 170. ↩︎
11
Macleod, Scottish Theology, 33-34. ↩︎
12
Thomas M’Crie, The Story of the Scottish Church from the Reformation to the Disruption (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1988), 51. ↩︎
13
M’Crie, Story, 53-54. ↩︎
14
William Maxwell Hetherington, “Introductory Essay,” in History of the Church in Scotland (7th ed.; Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1852), xxix-xxx. ↩︎
15
Catechism, Question 178 and 179. ↩︎
16
See the Note to Catechism, Question 179. ↩︎
17
Letter 80, “The General Assembly to Theodore Beza,” in the Works of John Knox (David Laing, ed.; New York: AMS Press, 1966), 6:546-548. ↩︎
18
John Knox, “The Mass Is Idolatry,” in Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559 (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995), 23. ↩︎
19
Hugh Martin, from a speech in the General Assembly, 3rd June 1872, as quoted in Biblical Praise (Jorge Ruiz Ortiz, ed.; Bathgate: My Soul Concern Publications, 2017), 106. ↩︎
20
Alexander Stewart and J. Kennedy Cameron, The Free Church of Scotland: The Crisis of 1900 (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1989), 395. ↩︎
21
Martin, as quoted in Biblical Praise, 107-108. ↩︎
22
It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal thoroughly with this point. For more information consult John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God (Richmond, VA: Whittet & Shepperrson, 1888). This was recently reprinted by Puritan Reprints. For a modern treatment of the issue, see John Price, Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study (Avinger, TX: Simpson Publishing Company, 2005). ↩︎
23
Dr. Robert Candlish quoted in James Gibson, The Public Worship of God: Its Authority and Modes, Hymns and Hymn Books (London: James Nisbet and Son, 1869), 107. ↩︎
24
Stewart and Cameron, Free Church, 394-395. ↩︎
25
John Row, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, from the Year 1558 to August 1637, (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842), 12-13. ↩︎
26
Hetherington, “Introductory Essay,” xii-xiii. ↩︎
27
M’Crie, Story, 84-85. ↩︎

church government exclusive psalmody holy days papacy regulative principle

The Claims of Christ AssertedThe Testimony of the Free Church of Scotland for Today

The Claims of Christ Demonstrated