The sixth in this great series.

“Quotations from the English Puritan Period on Head-covering

William Greenhill 1581-1671
“They (the angels – DS) reverence the greatness and majesty of Christ. Though they be high and glorious, yet they see so vast a distance between Christ and themselves, that they cover their faces, Isa. vi. And their bodies, here; they come not into his presence rudely, but with great respect and reverence. As God is to be had in reverence of all that are about him, Psalm 89:7, so Christ is reverenced of all the angels that are about him. Women are to be veiled in the assemblies, because of the angels, 1 Cor. 11:10, to show their reverence and subjection to them being present; and angels are covered, to show their reverence and subjection to Christ. It is an honour to the angels, that in reverence to them the women are to be veiled; and it is a great honour to Christ, that angels reverence and adore him.”

Commentary on Ezekiel (Ch.1:23), by William Greenhill, member of the Westminster Assembly.

William Gouge 1575-1653
“Heading 3. – Of an husbands superioritie over a wife, to be acknowledged by a wife.
….6. The very attire which nature and custome of all times and places have taught women to put on, confirmeth the same: as long haire, vailes, and other coverings over the head: and the former argument doth the Apostle himself use to this very purpose, 1 Cor.11:7 & c. …’And if it (i.e. the hair – DS) be given her for a covering (vail), say you, wherefore need she add another covering (vail)? That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgement of her subjection’ (Chrysostom).

‘Of Domestical Duties’ by William Gouge, member of the Westminster Assembly.

John Lightfoot 1602-1675
“Therefore the Apostle requires the vailing of women in Religious worship, by the same notion and reason, as men veiled themselves, namely for reverence towards God. But certainly it may be required, whether he so much urgeth the vailing of women, as reproves the vailing of men. However, by this most fit argument, he well chastiseth the contrary custom, and foolishness of the men: as though he had said, do ye not consider, that the man is doxa theou the glory of God, but the woman is only doxa andros, the glory of the man; that the woman was made for man; that man is the head of the woman: and how ridiculous is it, that men should use a vail, when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God, and women not use it, whose glory is less?”

Commentary on First Corinthians (ch.11:5), by John Lightfoot, member of the Westminster Assembly.

Thomas Manton 1620-1677
“In the assembly you meet with angels and devils; angels observe your garb and carriage and devils tempt you. Therefore, be covered because of the angels. The practice of women (who come hither with a shameless impudence into the presence of God, men and angels) neither suits with modesty nor conveniency…(Such boldness) feeds your own pride, and provokes …others of your rank to imitate your vanity. Now we should rather please God than men; better never please men than offend God”

Sermons on Titus 2:11-14, Complete Works, vol.16, p.138 of Thomas Manton.

Christopher Love 1618-1651
“Eighth, the angels are present with us, beholding us in our church assemblies when we come to worship before God. When you are in the worship and service of God, the angels are with you, beholding you, though you see them not. This is hinted at in 1 Cor.11:10 ‘For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.” Some refer these words to ministers, who are elsewhere called angels, but we may understand it of the angels themselves because they delight in the things of the gospel. Here the apostle speaks of women not coming into church without covering. Why? Because of the angels, not the ministers. It is meant of the angels of heaven, and therein the women are to take heed how they come into the church, because the angels are spectators and behold how you behave yourselves, they being fellow-worshippers of God with you in church assemblies. And this should make you take heed of your carriage; for although they do not know your hearts, yet they behold your carriage as you come into the presence of God.”

A Treatise of the Angels by Christopher Love.

John Bunyan 1628-1688
“For this cause ought the woman to have power”, that is a covering, “on her head, because of the angels” 1 Cor.11:10…Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power or badge…”

John Cotton 1585-1652
“How is the public worship of God to be ordered and administered in the church? All the members of the church being met together as one man (i) in the sight of God (ii) are to join together in holy duties with one accord (iii) the men with their heads uncovered, the women covered.”

“For a woman to cover her head in time of public prayer, or prophesying, and for a man to uncover his head, the Apostle warranteth from both the light of nature, and the custome of the churches, 1 Cor.11:4 to 16.”

Ezekiel Hopkins 1633-1690
“The apostle tells us (1 Cor.11:10) that the woman was ‘to have power on her head, because of the angels’. Which place, especially the latter clause of it, is diversely interpreted. But I think all agree in this, that this power which they were to have on their heads was a vail or covering, which at other times, but most especially in the congregation, women ought to wear on their heads…But the men were uncovered in their assemblies, as the apostle tells us (v.4) to signify that they had nothing over them, but were superior to all visible creatures, and subject only to God.”

Benjamen Keach 1640-1704
“The thing signified is sometimes put for the sign materially…1 Corinthians 11:10, ‘A woman ought to have power on her head,’ that is a garment signifying that she was under the power of her husband.”

God willing, we look at Scotland next.”

Part Six

David Silversides

Part One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Seven, Eight and Nine

In John 14:26 Christ said to his disciples that the Holy Spirit would ‘teach them all things’ and then in chapter 16:13 they were told that the same Spirit would ‘guide you into all truth.’ These are words that are very important to the life of the Church and the experience of the individual believer and therefore call for our close attention.

Who was Christ speaking to?
At the time these words were spoken Judas had already left to betray the Saviour and so Christ was speaking to 11 of the 12 disciples. Those same disciples would in time make up 11 of the 12 Apostles who would lay the foundation of the New Testament Church. So our Lord is speaking to 11 individual believers who also constituted the nucleus of the Church and what he says to them applies in both contexts. The Spirit would be given to individual believers and would also be poured out upon the Church.

What does he say?
In the Old Testament and into the New one function of the Holy Spirit was to inspire Scripture. This work would continue until the canon of Scripture was complete and as that canon is now complete we do not believe that such inspiration exists in the Church today. However the words of Christ in the above verses are not a reference to the inspiratory work of the Spirit but to His illuminatory Work and therefore they are words that have application to all generations of the Church of Christ; the Spirit continues to illuminate the minds of His people giving them understanding of what he has revealed in Scripture.

From what we have said, two things arise.

(i)Private Illumination
The Roman Catholic Church has long held that that Church is infallible while at the same time paying lip service to infallibility of the Bible. However history teaches us that in matters of controversy they will appeal to the infallible interpretation of the Bible by the Church rather than the authority of Scripture itself. For centuries they struggled to find a seat for this infallibility. Would it be in the priesthood, the bishops, Church councils? Eventually in 1870 the Vatican council arrived at the doctrine of the infallibility of one – the Pope. (It should be noted that the decision of the said Vatical Council cannot therefore be accepted as infallible and they may have erred in placing the seat of this infalibility with the Pope).

R.B Kuiper in his work ‘The Glorious Body of Christ’ writes ‘It stands to the everlasting credit of the Reformers of the 16th century that they rebelled against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility,’ and we must not miss the great benefits that have come to us through their labours. For centuries the Bible was a banned book, no copy could be found in English, German, French or Dutch. Ignorant men had to take the word of corrupt and ignorant priests and their hope of eternal life consisted in religious acts or purchased indulgences. We ought particularly to remember that it cost William Tyndale his life to give us the Bible in our mother tongue.

The Reformers were moved to such determined labour because they correctly understood that every believer had the right to interpret the Word of God and to teach it to others (We are not saying that all had the right to publicly preach as ordained ministers). The Spirit is really promised to every believer to illuminate him; to guide him into all truth and to teach him all things. Another text of importance is found in 1John 2:27 ‘But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.’

(ii)Ecclesiastical Illumination
While we reject Rome’s doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility, at the same time we do not accept the position that many protestants have adopted. Kuiper describes it for us ‘On the other hand, certain Anabaptists, individualists of the Protestant Reformation, stressed the right of private interpretation of the Word of God to the point of practically ruling out the illumination of the Church by the Spirit of truth. Today many Protestants, including numerous fundamentalists, take the Anabaptist position.’

Men will plead a text like 1John 2:27 and conclude I have Spirit and have no need to be taught by men. All I need is my Bible; to use commentaries is deemed as very unspiritual and the Creeds of Christendom are of course rejected as the mere products of men. But John was writing to correct the gnostic ideas that were creeping into the early Church when men were being taught that they needed a higher knowledge in addition to scripture. His point is that they had understood the doctrines of the gospel and received them to the saving of their soul and did not need the wisdom of the gnostic heretics. If he meant that becasue they had the Spirit and had no need of instruction by men then why on earth was he writing them a letter of instruction?

We must remember that Christ speaks in Gospel of John of the Spirit being given to 11 individual Christians who were also the nucleus of the Church. Then on the day of Pentecost the Spirit was poured out on the Church and so it was subsequently in Samaria and Caesarea Acts 2, 8, 10. So while the Spirit is most certainly giiven to every individual believer who has the right to interpret the Bible, He is also given to illumine the Church.

The Errors of Rome and Radical Protestantism are very similar
Applying this understanding to the errors of the Roman Catholic Church and to erroneous views within the Protestant Church we will find that they are in fact quite similar in their logic. Rome argues that The promise of the Spirit was given to the Apostles as representatives of Church. Therefore it was only relevant to the Apostles and their succsessors (their bishops). Upon this they then deny the right of private interpretation and ultimately end up with ecclesiastical infallibility in the successor of Peter.

On the other hand Radical Protestantism misses the point that the promise of the Spirit was given to the nucleus of the Church and limits its application to the individual Christian. They fail to see Christ’s promise to guide the Church into all truth and ultimately play down the value of the instruction of Church. They are happy to throw out millenia of Spirit led study and teaching because ‘They have the Spirit!’ and in so doing they take an unwitting step to claiming their own infallibility.

G.B

Following a discussion arising from one of our posts on Presbyterian I have been giving a little more thought to the distinctions between a ruling and teaching elder. Sherman Isbell in a book review of “Order in the Offices” (Edited by Mark R. Brown. 1993) gives a helpful look at differing views on the subject from the period of the Reformation. We reproduce part of that review (slightly edited) below and hope that it will be itself immediately helpful in defining the Reformation era’s understanding of Presbyterianism, and also useful as a resource for further study. We commend a reading of the full review on Mr Isbell’s own site, The Westminster Presbyterian.

“Contemporary confusion calls for a fresh consideration of what might be called Reformation-era Presbyterianism. The editor (Mark R Brown) is incorrect in claiming that Thomas Smyth’s (1808-1873) views represent classic Presbyterianism, and that Dabney’s are “the modern view” or “the new theory.” The fact is that Dabney and Thornwell are faithful to the original Presbyterian model when they teach that both the gospel minister and the ruling elder are the biblical presbyter, and that these are distinguishable offices within one order. This was the position held by Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Zanchi, and Cartwright, in the sixteenth century, and was adopted in the Second Book of Discipline of the Chruch of Scotland (1578). It was the standard view in the Scotland of the seventeenth-century Second Reformation, as indicated by the writings of Calderwood and Dickson, and in the books of the four Scottish ministers who were commissioners to the Westminster Assembly.

It was taught by John Owen. It is found in Walter Steuart of Pardovan’s Collections and Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland (1709), which was long the authoritative manual in the Church of Scotland and in early American Presbyterianism. It was also the view of the two Princeton professors of church polity, Samuel Miller (1769-1850) and Alexander T. MacGill (1807-1889). Southern Presbyterians Robert J. Breckenridge (1800-1871), Thornwell and Dabney were simply following this cloud of witnesses. Thomas Smyth, Charles Hodge and Peter Campbell were undeniably departing from the orginal Presbyterian model when they alleged that the ruling elder is not a biblical presbyter. Smyth is highly selective in his citations from historical materials. Reformation-era Presbyterianism is reasserted by John Murray (in volume two of his Collected Writings) and by Edmund Clowney. Clowney’s “Brief for Church Governors,” first issued as a class syllabus at Westminster Seminary, and now printed in Order in the Offices, is an excellent exegetical study, insisting on the status of ruling elders as presbyters, but also the distinguishable gifts, function and commission of ministers of the word.

The fact is that both Hodge and Smyth on the one hand, and Breckenridge, Thornwell and Dabney on the other, departed from the Reformation-era model. The innovation on the part of the second party was their claim that the imposition of hands in ordination is merely an act of rule, and belongs to the ruling elder as well as to the minister of the word. The older position, represented, for example, by Gillespie’s Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland (1641), is that there is a biblical distinction between the rule committed to all presbyters, and certain executive functions carried out on behalf of the presbytery. The imposition of hands is an executive function, and such executive functions, like the administration of the sacraments, the preaching of God’s word to his people, and the pronouncement of admonition and censures on behalf of church courts, belong exclusively to the minister of the word, “for he is as messenger and herald between God and the people” (Second Book of Discipline). This division of functions was endorsed by Samuel Miller. After Miller, neither side in the nineteenth-century American debate remained altogether faithful to the Reformation-era pattern.

There were also new theories in Scotland and Ireland during the nineteenth century. Peter Campbell, Principal of Aberdeen University, and hailing from the Church of Scotland’s moderate wing (known for its aversion to the warm proclamation of evangelical truth), published a book in 1866 in which he took much the same position as Smyth and Hodge. Denying that I Timothy 5:17 indicated a distinction between preachers and ruling elders, Campbell concluded that only gospel ministers are referred to in the verse. Campbell condemned Miller’s The Ruling Elder as a “singularly illogical essay,” urging that one should not speak of ordination in connection with the admission of “lay church rulers,” because it would be inconsistent with their position as “the representatives of the unordained members of the church, as distinct from its professional functionaries.”

Witherow, writing from Belfast in 1873 and 1889, agreed that the New Testament represents all presbyters as preachers, but drew a conclusion opposite to that of Campbell. Witherow came to believe that all the functions of the gospel ministry should be equally open to ruling elders. At the same time, he suggested that in practice there must have been a division of labor among the presbyters in the apostolic church, and that some men called to the single office simply chose not to preach, because they were not well-gifted for that work. Witherow gives poorly-gifted men the prerogative to preach, but relieves them of the duty to preach. As Iain Murray rightly observes, Witherow destroys the biblical concept of a call to the gospel ministry (I Cor. 9:16-17, Acts 26:15-20, Rom. 10:15, Col. 4:17). Witherow fails to coordinate the three elements of a biblical office: gifts, functions, and an authoritative commission which makes the execution of functions both a prerogative and a duty. The theory that men are invested with office, but have no responsibility to discharge the functions of the office, was soundly critiqued by Gillespie, Owen, Dabney, McGill, Thomas E. Peck (1822-93), and by Witherow’s Irish contemporary, William D. Killen (1806-1902). Witherow’s position has apparently never been adopted by any Presbyterian church; it is quite another thing when churches following Gillespie’s doctrine allow ruling elders to supply the pulpit occasionally, as the church’s best resource when ministerial supply is altogether unavailable. Witherow contradicts the teaching of the Westminster Confession (XXVII.iv), by arguing that ruling elders should be allowed to administer the sacraments.

The inadequacies of Campbell’s and Witherow’s treatment of I Timothy 5:17 were well exposed by Gillespie in 1641. One has only to read Gillespie’s book, or the essay by Clowney, to see how pale is the claim by Campbell and Witherow that a case for distinction of gifts, functions, and commission within the eldership, is based only on one verse. Witherow seems unaware that his arguments had been addressed by Gillespie, and Campbell dismisses Gillespie by name without engaging his well-reasoned case. Gillespie’s Assertion was last printed in Edinburgh a century and a half ago, in The Presbyterian’s Armoury. Alongside his English Popish Ceremonies, recently reprinted, this is the book of Gillespie’s most requiring republication in our generation.

There is also valuable exegetical work in Robert Rayburn’s essay, which first appeared in 1986, in Covenant Seminary’s Presbyterion. Rayburn expounds the role of priests and Levites as an Old Testament precedent for the gospel ministry. The minister of the word, like the Old Testament priests, carries responsibility for the conduct of the ordinances of worship, and combines ruling and teaching in one office. This perspective was obviously important in the Westminster Assembly’s description of the pastor, found in the Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1644).

To assert the uniqueness of the gospel ministry, and the necessity of a call to preach, is highly appropriate. But this needs to be done on a firmer exegetical footing than the denial that the ruling elder is a biblical presbyter, and there should be a more accurate identification of historic Presbyterian teaching…”

Sherman Isbell