The Two Kingdom Speech

I have often heard the most dramatic part of this speech cited but have not previously found the whole speech. Thanks to David Myers’ blog it is now my pleasure to share it with you. It’s taken from “This day in Presbyterian History” for September 2, 2014 citing Melville’s Diary, as recorded in WM Hetherington “History of the Church of Scotland” (p. 105). The entry for September 2nd, by David T Myers, and citing Hetherington’s History reads:

The day is lost to church history. We know the month and the year of the Two Kingdom Speech of Andrew Melville. That month and year was September 1596. But the exact day is lost to us.  So this author is going to put it on September 2, this day in Presbyterian history, because it is too important not to consider it.

The elders of the General Assembly were meeting in Cupar, Fife, Scotland. Due to a breach of faith on the part of King James, the assembly had decided to sent a deputation to seek the resolution of their concerns. Heading that deputation was James Melville, who was chosen because of his courteous manner and the apparent favor he had with the king. Along side him, out of the spotlight, was his uncle, Reformation leader Andrew Melville.

Barely had James Melville begun speaking before the king cut him off and accused him of meeting in a seditious manner with other elders of the kirk, and bringing causeless fears before the people of Scotland. Andrew Melville stepped in, despite his nephew’s attempt to keep him silent, by taking the king’s robe by the sleeve, and saying that the king was “God’s silly vassal.”

“Sir,” said Andrew Melville, “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 in extreme danger 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 your faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty, or else be traitors both to Christ and to you. Therefore, Sir, as divers times before I have told you, so now again I must tell you, there are two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of the 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. Sir, those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over his church, have power and authority from Him to govern his spiritual kingdom, both jointly and severally; the which no Christian king or prince should control and discharge, but fortify and assist; otherwise they are not faithful subjects of Christ and members of his Church. We will yield to you your place, and give you all due obedience; but again, 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. Permit us then freely to meet in the name of Christ, and to attend to the interests of that Church of which you are the chief member. 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 and assembled for the ruling and welfare of his Church, which was even for your welfare, defense and preservation, when these same enemies were seeking your destruction. Their assemblies since that time have continually have been terrible to these enemies, and most steadfast to you. And now, when there is more than extreme necessity for the continuance and discharge of that duty, will you (drawn to your own destruction by a most pernicious counsel) begin to hinder and dishearten Christ’s servants and your most faithful subjects, quarreling them for their convening, and the care they have of their duty to Christ and you, when you should rather commend and countenance them, as the godly kings and emperors did? The wisdom of your counsel, which I call devilish, is this, that you must be served by all sorts of men, to come to your purpose and grandeur, Jew and Gentile, Papist and Protestant; and because the Protestants and ministers of Scotland are over strong, and control the king, they must be weakened and brought low by stirring up a party against them, and, the king being equal and indifferent, both should be fain to flee to him. But, Sir, if God’s wisdom be the only true wisdom, this will prove mere and mad folly; His curse cannot but light upon it; in seeking both ye shall lose both; whereas in cleaving uprightly to God, His true servants would be your sure friends, and He would compel the rest counterfeitly and lyingly to give over themselves and serve you.” (Melville’s Dairy, pp. 245, 246, quoted in W.M. Hetherington, “History of the Church of Scotland” p. 105

Worship

I recently contacted one of the preachers I have enjoyed reading who had written about why Reformed Christians are leaving for Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the link with modern worship styles. He suggested this article may be of interest since it deals with a similar subject.

Here is the link and the article is called Room for Reverence and Awe. for those who need to cut and paste links into their browser here’s the URL:

http://www.michaelspotts.com/blog/2015/9/24/room-for-reverence-and-awe

Christian Unity in Diversity.

Unity in diversity and diversity in unity, is a law of nature as well as of the Church.

Truth is like the light of the sun: it descends from heaven, one and ever the same; and yet it assumes different colors upon earth, according to the objects on which it falls. In like manner formularies somewhat different may sometimes express the same christian idea considered under different aspects.

How dull would creation be if this boundless variety of forms and colors, which gives it beauty, were replaced by an absolute uniformity! How melancholy also would be its appearance, if all created things did not form a magnificent unity!

Divine unity has its rights, so also has human diversity. In religion we must suppress neither God nor man. If you have not unity your religion is not of God; if you have not diversity the religion is not of man; it ought to be of both. Would you erase from creation one of the laws that God has imposed upon it, – that of infinite diversity? And even things of life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? But if there is a diversity in religion arising from the difference of individuality, and which consequently must subsist in heaven, there is one which proceeds from man’s rebellion, and this is indeed a great calamity.

There are two tendencies which equally lead us into error. The one exaggerates diversity, the other exaggerates unity. The essential doctrines of salvation are the limit between these two courses. To require more than these doctrines is to infringe this diversity; to require less is to infringe unity.

The latter excess is that of rash and rebellious minds, who look beyond Jesus Christ to form systems and doctrines of men.

The former exists in various exclusive sects, and particularly in that of Rome.

— JH Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century,
Book 11, Chapter 1, Nook Edition, p 196 of 1194.

The Sabbath

Much time is spent in Christian circles, today, discussing what may (and what may not) be done on the Sabbath — or Sunday. Some would even go so far as to argue that Sunday is not to be considered as a day of rest since it was a purely Jewish regulation based on the Law, not the Gospel. It was interesting to discover this little gem in the Expositor’s Bible. Dealing with Matthew 11 and 12 and the four conflicts that faced our Lord in those chapters, the author says [his paragraphing modified by your blogger]:

The first attack gave Him the opportunity of speaking on the Sabbath law. As we have seen, He began to treat the subject from the strictly Jewish standpoint, using the example of David and the ritual of the Temple to correct the misapprehensions and misrepresentations of those with whom in the first instance He had to do.

But He does not leave it as a mere Jewish question; He broadens His view, and shows that the day of rest is for humanity at large-not, however, as a burden, but as a blessing, the principle which underlies it being “mercy, and not sacrifice.” Thus, out of this conflict there has come to us the Magna Charta of the people’s Sabbath, the full text of which is given in the corresponding passage of the second gospel: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man For the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”

Here we have, on the one hand, the vindication of our rights against those who would deprive us of the day of rest, as if the privilege had been intended only for the Jews, and was abolished when the dispensation closed; and, on the other, the assertion of our liberty against those who, by their petty regulations and restrictions, would make God’s precious gift a burden instead of a blessing.

And how wisely and beautifully does He confirm to us our privileges by following the charter with an argument which, though coming still under the head of the great principle (“Mercy, and not sacrifice”), is no mere repetition, but illustrates the wider aspect just unfolded, by its freedom from Jewish colour, and its appeal to the conscience and heart of mankind at large: “What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much, then, is a man better than a sheep?” (Mat_12:11-12).

Labels

In our daily lives we use labels all the time. Some are precision types of labels – like “HE Explosive” – which have to be accurate or there are extremely unpleasant (if not fatal) consequences. Some are informative labels like “Information Counter.” This label may, or may, not be helpful, it depends on whether there is any one there at the time and whether they are able to provide the information you require. The problem is not the label it is the attendant circumstances. Some labels indicate a change in the contents like “unusable” added to a drum of materials awaiting transport to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. Some labels are collective nouns like “Railroad Station” or “Apartment Block” – they describe a number of items that are different but which share an aspect of reality in common. Such labels will often require another label or two to identify the specifics of the particular item within the group.”

What has this to do with living as a Reformed Christian?” you might ask. The first answer is in the form of the question. Why do we say “Reformed Christian” instead of just calling ourselves “Christian?” It’s because there are now so many people who use the name Christian that we need to distinguish between our group and others using the same name. We may bewail (with some justification) the fate of the once precise title “Christian” – which meant “one who follows Jesus’ Christ’s teachings and practice.” That, however, does not change the fact that there are many today who truly follow Jesus Christ yet believe some importantly different things. So, in order to make it clearer which variety of Christian we are talking about we might use the word Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran and so on. So imprecision leads to a new label.

A second reason for thinking about labels has to do with the more technical aspect of being a Christian in the world of the 21st Century. Whether we agree with the matter or not we are all called upon to categorize things (and that includes beliefs). So, when we run into a new teaching which seems different from that with which we are familiar, we give it a descriptive name to help us remember its characteristics. That is a useful practice as long as there is general agreement on the characteristics that label describes.

Sometimes, however, a long-used label describes a group who no longer believe as the original group did. In that case we have a choice of leaving the label on them or changing it. This becomes complicated when the group is a denomination (such as Presbyterian) because there are almost always some within the group who want to hold on to the old beliefs rather than change. To which group do we affix the Presbyterian label? The majority who claim it as their own or the group who it might appear have the right to it because of their adherence to the former teaching. The usual practice is that the group which had the name in the beginning but which changed beliefs retain the name and the new group add another label to mark the difference. A change in viewpoint, therefore is a second reason for a new label.

A third reason why this is important is that not all labels are chosen by the people in the group. For the majority of Christian Church groups this was certainly the case. Christian was first the name that unbelievers used of the group in Antioch. The same is true of the name Reformed as well – because of their concern that the Church be cleansed of false practices and re-formed on more Biblical lines the Churches which separated (eventually from Rome) were called Reformed Churches. The same is true of those who were called Puritans – so called because of their claim that true Christians ought to be concerned to by purified from the taint of sin.

This means that sometimes labels have false ideas that are clustered around them because of the ideas of those that place them on the group. The early Christians were accused of atheism (they had no representations of their God) a distinction they shared with the Jews, incest (because they recommended that Christian “brothers” should only marry their “sisters”) and cannibalism (because they ate the body and blood of their Christ. In each case, because a part of being Christian is to explain our beliefs, accepting the label gave a good opportunity to do so to neighbors. The third reason for the labels then is because it indicates an awareness in society of our beliefs (however false that might be).

Finally, some labels are extremely accurate and have to be because incorrect labeling can be fatal. One of those labels is “elect of God.” To affix this label accurately is something only God can do. We may describe the contents more or less accurately but the discernment needed to differentiate between the true and false versions of those who look like they belong in this category is beyond our capabilities. We may come close, but we cannot say definitely for anyone.

There are some more of this kind of label and, sadly, too many are prepared to use them as if we could tell infallibly who is and is not in the category concerned. “True Church” – no, all churches are an admixture of true and false believers. “The Last Days” where the period represented is not the whole of the time from Christ’s ascension until his return – God has not revealed the times or the seasons which allow us to be more precise. “The Biblical interpretation” where the passage spoken of is not as clear as the speaker imagines. Some passages are clear enough to say “the Biblical interpretation is …” but it is better to say, “I believe the Bible says …” instead when there is any debate over the meaning.

“Reformed” or “not Reformed”

As one who has a great deal of sympathy with restricting the use of the word “Reformed” it disturbs me that some would so restrict it that it can no longer be used as an adjective. The only people, it seems to me, that have the right to argue for some real restriction of the term would be those of the Continental tradition which use the name as the sole title of their denomination. Even there, however, there are national additions to describe the Churches. The Dutch Reformed are not the same as the German Reformed or the French Reformed – their confessional bases are not always the same and, historically, there have been other additions which make the word Reformed more an adjective than a noun also for them.

It is in the Presbyterian tradition, where the idea that the word “Reformed” should not be appropriated by those of differing traditions has its strongest defenders. And here is where my sympathy lies. For Presbyterians the word has traditionally included all those things which make Presbyterianism Presbyterian. For us the word implies much more than “mere” soteriology. Resting on a particular understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Testament leads to a certain amount of continuity between the Old Church and the New. It is hard to share the adjective with those who do not share that same view. Yet, even here, we have “Reformed Presbyterians” where the word “reformed” is an adjective signifying the way a group of Presbyterians wish to be defined. So, let us be clear about this, Presbyterians do use the word as an defining adjective. Yet the debate keeps resurfacing.

So what are we to do? Is there some help we can gain from the Bible on this matter – after all (the confession we largely share with those we differ on the matter does say) – it is the sole rule for faith and life. It rules even over the decisions of Councils and Synods (or General Assemblies – for those of the Scottish tradition). What can we glean from the events of the early days of the new Church in Acts? Well, there *was* a controversy recorded in Acts 15 over the behavior of the new Churches. And it was a matter of “behave this way or you cannot be saved.” The Church was divided over the matter of Circumcision – the new Churches did not adhere to the Jewish practice, yet wanted to be recognized as being a part of the same group. Some said: “If you don’t do it, you don’t belong.”

Ironically one group that wishes to be associated with those of us who hold to the Presbyterian (or Continental Presbyterian) tradition also have a controversy with us over the rite of initiation into the Church. Now it is we who are saying: behave this way or you cannot be recognized as a part of the true Church. We are more polite than our Reforming forefathers but it still comes down to the same thing. We no longer deny, how can we, that people on the opposing side can, and do, adhere to a Christian soteriology. Yet surely to be born again is the only thing necessary in order to be a part of the same Church that Christ died for. And, sadly for our exclusionary viewpoint, the result of that process is measured for the most part by a correct soteriology.

So, what was the decision of that first council? “That we trouble not them which, from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that … they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood …” Are we prepared to take the same stance with our brethren from among the Baptist, Congregational and Episcopalian traditions when they are not asking even to be considered a part of the same ecclesiastical body. They wish to be recognized as standing for the same soteriology as we do – they are prepared to add a denominationally distinctive name to make it clear we don’t all teach exactly the same. The differences, while significant enough to stop us being able to work in the same denomination, are insignificant when it comes to belonging to the Body of Christ.

Surely, on that basis, we should have no objection when (say) Baptists wish to show their tie to the Reformers’ soteriology and (in many cases) even their appreciation of the insights of covenantal theology by using the adjective “Reformed” with the word “Baptist?” We should be applauding that they see the necessity to make the distinctions such a name implies even as we pray that the addition of “Baptist” may in the long run become unnecessary.

Is it not possible (at least) that it was sensitivity to the negative responses they received when they accepted the London Confession which made Baptists of that era choose “Particular” or Calvinistic” as the adjective of choice? Were our forefathers still prepared to label them as heretics, who were able to undersign so many of the key doctrines in the Westminster Confession holding they were not even Christian? Could it even be that our definition of a true Church is more restrictive than that of the Bible? They were prepared to accept Gentiles and Samaritans – and even John the Baptist’s converts as members in good standing.

By all means let us maintain in our own circles, our understanding of the word Reformed as a description of Presbyterian theology (allowing as we do for differing versions of the Westminster Confession – such as the sections dealing with established and disestablished Churches) in the hope that, as we discuss with brethren from different backgrounds, we may all at last come to share the same understand of all “Reformed” implies – even if that won’t be before Christ returns to usher in the Final Judgment.