Church

It is often said that church is the people, not the building. This is inaccurate: the building is precisely what the church is. The English word church, the Scottish kirk and the German Kirche, is derived from the Greek word kuriakos, which means “belonging to the Lord”. The Greek phrase to kuriakon came to be used to designate the place where Christians met to worship and in time was transferred to the people themselves as the “spiritual building” of the Lord. The people of God in the Greek New Testament (and the Septuagint for that matter) are the ekklhsia or “assembly”, those who have been called out of slavery to assemble before the Lord to receive his word and worship him. Our modern translations do, however, render ekklhsia as “church”, so I guess we must make do.

Canticles i.7-8

The Bride longs to be with the King’s flocks, and the King tells his Bride to pasture her goats beside the tents of his shepherds. The image of a flock of sheep is used of the congregation of Israel, with its ruler, be it Joshua or one of the kings, as its shepherd (Num. xxvii, 16-17; 1 Kings xxii.17). Although the King is the master shepherd, he has undershepherds to tend to his sheep. The Lord Jesus, of course, is the great Shepherd of his people the church (1 Pet. ii, 25; v, 4), with the presbyters of the church as his under-shepherds, tending his flock (1 Pet. v, 2). If the King tells his Bride to pasture beside his shepherds for protection, then it is important to make sure they are shepherding aright. Some people think that the Bible has nothing to say about how the church should be governed. When Christ promised to lead his apostles into all the truth (John xvi, 13) that his church whom he would purchase with his own blood (Acts xx, 28) would need when he had ascended, are we to think that this was not to include how they should be governed? Of course not. We have that instruction for us in the Scriptures: Biblical church government is Presbyterial church government.

It appears to be taught in Scripture that the church consists of particular local congregations, with elders for their own immediate government, gathered together under the government of a presbytery, or council of elders. 1 Tim. iv, 14 reads:

“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery [presbuterion, council of elders].” (A.V.)

The church of Jerusalem consisted of more than one congregation. The multitude of believers there (Acts ii, 41,46,47; Acts iv, 4; Acts v, 14; Acts vi, 1, 7; Acts xxi, 20) argues in favour of this, particularly as it was the custom of local church at that time to meet in houses (Rom. xvi, 5). That these were under one presbyterial government comes from the description of these congregations as one church (Acts ii, 47; Acts viii, 1; Acts v, 11; Acts xii, 5; Acts xv, 4) under the government of a group of elders which met together for acts of government (Acts xi, 30; Acts xv, 4, 6, 22; Acts xxi, 18). Likewise, it appears that there was more than one congregation in the church of Ephesus, where Paul’s ministry seems to have had a significant numerical impact (Acts xix, 18-20, 1 Cor. xvi, 8,9). The particular church that met in the house of Aquila and Prisca (1 Cor. xvi, 19) cannot be the entire fruit of labours described in these terms. There were many elders over these many congregations as one church or flock (Acts xx, 17, 28, 29). The letter to the church in Revelation also indicates that the many congregations in Ephesus were under one presbyterial government (Rev. ii, 1). Again, Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every town (Titus i, 5).

Moreover, there appear to be occasions where ministers from more than one presbytery gather together for the government of the wider church (Acts xv, 2, 6, 22, 23).

Biblical church government is connexional, and provides essential balance to protect Christ’s bride from anarchy and tyranny, and expresses the unity of the people of God.

Justification

Justification in the Old Testament was clearly understood to be a forensic term. Deuternomy xxv, i reads:

“If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. ” (A.V.)

Turning our backs on the Reformers?

The traditional Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification is expressed well by John Calvin:

“It is entirely by the intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment.”

In contrast, the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) (from my admittedly limited knowledge of it) appears to teach that justification is not about sinners being accepted by God on the basis of an alien righteousness (Christ’s) imputed to believers, but that it is God’s declaration about who is member of the covenant community. Paul’s point according to the NPP, is that, now Christ has come, faith in him is the only badge of membership in God’s worldwide covenant people. There are three tenses to justification. In the past at the resurrection, God vindicated or justified Christ, who dealt there with the curse (of exile) which was upon the covenant people so that the blessing that God had promised might be fulfilled. In the present, people are justified by God(acknowledged by God to be members of the one family of faith) through faith in Christ, that is belief that he is Messiah and Lord. This is possible on the basis of Christ’s past justification. The primary focus is eschatological: in the future, God will vindicate his people at the final judgment. Indeed, present justification is the verdict of the future justification brought forward. In the NPP then, the phrase “the righteousness of God” actually refers to God’s faithfulness in vindicating his covenant people as righteous. Paul’s focus isn’t on the salvation of individual sinners, but on God’s fulfilment of his purposes for the world through the transforming power of the gospel of the Lordship of Christ.

The NPP seems to be based on two main ideas:

1. Judaism at the time of writing of the New Testament was not a form of legalism. Entry into covenant relationship with God was by his grace. Works maintained that covenant relationship.

2. The expression “works of the law” in Paul’s writings does not refer to the obtaining of favour with God by through obedience to the law (legalism) but to the nationalist Jewish claim that God’s covenant promise only extends to the Jews. The “works of the law” are boundary markers, those acts of conformity to the law that distinguished the Jewish community from the Gentiles.

So the controversy Paul is addressing in his Epistles is a kind of nationalism. Israel is not guilty of trying to attain righteousness by works, but rather of believing that ethnic Jewish descent guarantees membership of the true covenant people. There was a failure to acknowledge that God’s covenant promise extends to Gentile as well as to Jew.

This would, of course, mean that the Reformers got their doctrine of justification completely wrong. Indeed, advocates of the NPP such as N. T. Wright openly state that the Reformers were guilty of projecting back into the first-century controversy the sixteenth-century debate between Protestants and the Church of Rome. They misunderstood what Paul was teaching about justification by faith and took the doctrine out of its first century context, transposing it into theirs.

Now clearly our sole authority on such matters is to be the Scriptures, but it is the case that we do not interpret the Bible in vacuo. We have inherited two millennia of Christian thought on the meaning of the Scriptures, and it would surely be foolish to ignore what others say, particularly those who are wiser, godlier and more learned. Obviously we don’t keep what is handed down simply because it has been handed down: that would make tradition authoritative. But we should think very carefully about departing so radically from the teaching of the Reformers.

First, the NPP’s criticism of the Reformers seems to put the cart before the horse. Was it not the Reformers’ study of Scripture that led them to discover the great truth that the sinful men and women are counted right before God on the basis of Christ’s merits, received through faith, and which drove the Reformation in the first place? Was it not Luther’s discovery that the phrase “the righteousness of God” did not refer, after all, to the demands of God’s law and his just punishment of all transgressors with torment in purgatory and hell, but the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ, imputed to those who come to Christ in faith? And are we to think that the Reformers were so unlearned that they could not interpret a text in context?

More important is the direct testimony of Scripture. Clearly throughout Scripture, the way people are accepted by God is by grace through faith (Gen. xv, 6; Ps. xxxii, 1-2). Christopher Ash has preached some excellent sermons on Deuteronomy 30 which can be found on the website of Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon (www.wimbledon.org.uk). He points out that God doesn’t simply give his people a list of rules to obey. The word is near his people that they may do it when they lay hold of Christ by faith, because as the word is preached, Christ is offered. The choice Moses gives his people is not between good works and bad works, but between grace and works/idolatry. In contrast first-century Jews did seem to be pursuing a works-righteousness. Romans x,3 reads:

“For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”

We also have the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, which the Lord Jesus told to “some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Luke xvi, 9), that is, in their moral works.

God’s righteousness is the righteousness of Christ, obtained on the basis of his active obedience to the law, that is granted to all who believe. Romans x,4:

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Of course the gospel is about more than just the ordo salutis. God’s work in salvation is one of re-creation, of both individuals (2 Cor. v,17) and ultimately the whole creation (Rom. viii, 21), uniting all things in heaven and on earth in Christ for his glory (Eph. i, 3-10). Nevertheless, it is also true that each individual is in the wrong before God because of sin and deserving of his judgment and that each individual must repent and believe on Christ if they are to share in this eternal inheritance. The command to “choose life” is given to individuals (Deut xxx.19: “therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”, AV).

The NPP is dangerous indeed, as it fails to confront each and every sinner of the problem of their unrighteousness before God (Rom. iii, 10-12). It fails to address the problem of human beings relying on their own righteous deeds before God, which in reality are as menstrual rags (Is. lxiv.6) and which will not save them, and it does not point them to the righteousness that God has made available through the active obedience of Christ (Rom. x, 3-4) which is required for salvation and life in the presence of a holy God. Why then, will they put their trust in Christ?

Let us hold fast to the Reformed (and Biblical) faith, and not be afraid to sing, with Toplady:

A debtor to mercy alone,
Of covenant mercy I sing;
Nor fear with Thy righteousness on,
My person and offering to bring;
The terrors of law and of God
With me can have nothing to do;
My Saviour’s obedience and blood
Hide all my transgressions from view.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

One cannot allow the 450th anniversary of the martyrdom of this godly man to pass without some account of it. Below is an extract from Sir Marcus Loane’s excellent book, Masters of the English Reformation (Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), pp. 297-300. I make no apology for its length.

“‘And now,’ he [Cranmer] said, ‘forasmuch as I am come to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life past and all my life to come … I shall therefore declare unto you my very faith how I believe, without any colour or dissimulation: for now is no time to dissemble, whatsoever I have said or written in times past.’

“Cranmer had now come to the great work which was to make that day for ever memorable. When he had poured out his heart in prayer, the voice of repentance had been so manifest to all; but it was repentance, not for Reformation truth and teaching, but for his denial of them. But the meaning did not reach the congregation as they heard his first words for they had been led to expect quite a different confession. He held them in deliberate suspense while he went on with a recitation of the Creed in English: and then at last followed the words which his antagonists would all construe in their own way until their real meaning staggered them with utter dismay.”

“Cranmer had now completely recovered the poise which he had lost when he signed the Recantations [of which there were six], and he meant to reinstate his full accord with the Reformation and its theology. But he managed his speech with such skill that he was allowed to run on, at some length before its real drift was perceived. Yet the tension must have become almost unbearable as he neared the climax. ‘And now,’ he said, ‘I come to the great thing that troubleth my conscience more than any other thing that ever I said or did in my life, and that is the setting abroad of writings contrary to the truth: which here now I renounce and refuse, as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death and to save my life if it might be: and that is, all such bills which I have written or signed with mine own hand since my degradation: wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, therefore my hand shall first be punished; for if I may come to the fire, it shall be first burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy and anti-Christ, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament…’

“He could get no further; all the pent-up fury of a thunderstruck audience broke out … Cranmer was dragged from the stage and hurried off to the stake. He had nothing to say, nor did he lag as they hastened along, and so light and fleet were his steps that the Friars were hard put to keep pace. He had emerged from the toils of conscience and its war with logic, and he was now possessed of an inner freedom which made him soar in hope and long for the hour of release.

“The route lay down Brasenose Lane and out through the gate near St. Michael’s to the site in front of Balliol where not six months before Ridley and Latimer had been called out to play the man. On the same site, the stake was set up for Cranmer. It was in vain that the Spanish Friars warned and threatened now; he was beyond their reach. He knelt on the bare ground beside the stake and gave himself briefly to prayer.

“Then with cheerful spirit, he put off his upper garments until he stood with bare feet in a long shirt which reached to the ground. When his caps were removed, not a hair was to be seen on his head; but his long white beard flowed down on his chest and gave him and air of wonderful dignity. He gave his hand in a final clasp of goodwill to the friends who stood by, and so bade them farewell. Then he was bound to the stake with a steel band round his waist, and the fire was kindled at his feet, where a hundred and fifty faggots of furze and a hundred faggots of wood were piled. The fire leapt up, and he stretched out his arm and held his right hand in the flame: there he held it, without flinching, except that once it was withdrawn to wipe his face, until it had burnt to a stump, while he cried out the while: ‘This hand hath offended.’ [Other sources report that he cried out, 'This unworthy right hand. This unworthy right hand.']

“It was by this famous gesture that he proclaimed his faith and came at last to his triumph. This was recantation of a kind which none could undo; a Sign of Faith which no one could misread. His patience in torment, his courage in dying, won admiration even from hostile members of the crowd which looked on. He stood firmly in the same place, ringed with flame, lapped with fire; and stirred no more than the stake to which he was bound, only lifting up his eyes and crying so long as his voice would allow, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ …

“On that cold, wet morning of March 21st, 1556, in the sixty-seventh year of his life, Thomas Cranmer was caught away in a chariot of fire to soar aloft at the call of God in glory; while to those who stood by, the doom of the Primate of All England, his sorrow and triumph, struck home with a moral grandeur such as no mere words could ever inspire.”

***

May we, like this man, be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, and to his Gospel, even unto death.

***

From all sedicion and privye conspiracie, from the tyrannye of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities, from al false doctrine and herisy, from hardnes of heart, and contempte of thy word and commaundemente:

Good lorde deliver us.

(From the Litany in Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer of 1549)

Canticles vi.11-12

I wonder if you share the experience of puzzling long and hard over a passage of Scripture when suddenly, the Lord blesses you with its meaning. I certainly puzzled long and hard about these verses from the Song of Solomon, and I have an idea what they may mean.

We see the bride looking over the land to see whether it is blossoming. Suddenly, before she is aware of it, she is among the chariots of the prince who is surely none other than her husband. If we take the Song to be about the king as the husband of his people (the bride), then we can see how significant the concept of the land is. The land in which the people of God lived in the Old Testament was closely bound up with the people themselves. Of course, this is still the case in the New Testament. Let’s not under-materialize the promises. It is clearly the expectation of the Prophets in the Old Testament when they looked forward to the Restoration from the exile (see e.g. Isaiah xxxv.1-10) that the land in which they dwell will be made fruitful and prosperous again, the curse of the Fall will be removed which ultimately finds its fulfilment in the coming of Christ. Before you stone me for preaching a prosperity gospel, let me qualify that. We had a foregleam of this when Christ first came – he healed the sick, he raised the dead, he turned water into wine – but of course his kingdom at the moment is in its “mustard-seed” form. It is hidden. The wheat grows with the tares. But when he returns, the land which the people of God will inherit – no less than the whole earth – will be completely renewed. In these verses of the Song, then, do we not see a type of the church eagerly anticipating the Restoration that will be brought about (cf. Canticles ii.10-15), looking forward to the “refructification” of the land? As the church waits, suddenly, without warning, the Lord is there, her prince and her husband. This would certainly fit what follows, in which the bridegroom’s description of the bride is far more consummatory that what has come before. This would make sense as we approach the end of the Song. There is definitely New Testament teaching that can act as a “control” to this interpretation – the Parable of the Ten Virgins, for example: “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” (Matthew xxv.13)

Right strawy evangelism

It is my great privilege to be involved in the proclamation of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in the open-air here in Oxford. I don’t know if this has been your experience when you share the gospel with others, but one of the things that people often say to me goes something along the lines of, “But doesn’t science disprove…?” or “I need some scientific proof for the existence of God?” Whence this faith in science? Their appeal for rationality is, ironically, highly irrational, because science doesn’t prove or disprove anything.

There is this commonly-held view that as science “advances”, we are getting closer and closer to the truth about our world. Is this really the case? Is it not true that science advances as previously held theories are overthrown? That leaves little hope for our present theories. If all our past ideas have been shown to be wrong, then what reason have we to be confident that what we think is true now really is true? That’s not to say that there isn’t truth out there. I’m not an anti-realist. There is some strength in the argument that something may be right about our present theories, and when they are overthrown, the components which are right will be incorporated into the new theories. If we look back, there does seem to be continuity. Einstein does explain Newton. Newton’s laws can be regarded as a particular instance of Einstein’s. But we cannot say from the perspective of the present what parts of our present theories will be preserved in the future and what will be found to be false.

It isn’t surprising, is it? Humankind suppresses the fundamental truth of God’s eternal power and divine which is plainly revealed in his Creation. Our minds are darkened. Our reasoning is sinful. If we take the doctrine of Total Depravity seriously, then this must be our conclusion. If we miss the most important point about our universe, how then can we be confident then that any of our assertions about our universe are correct, that we have got the right answer? That’s why we’re so utterly dependent on the special revelation God has given us in the Scriptures.

When people object to the gospel by claiming that science disproves it, then, it is fair to say that science does not disprove anything and then point them to the Lord Jesus, his death and his resurrection. However, there is a temptation, when people ask for scientific proof for Christianity, to go down the Intelligent Design route (for example) and try to demonstrate why a Creator is necessary. Once you have demonstrated the existence of a Creator, it might be argued, it is only a short way to showing that we are accountable, that we have rebelled etc. However, we have just seen that science doesn’t prove anything. If we go down that particular apologetic route, then we are ultimately working with shoddy tools, tools that are simply incapable of doing the job. Even if people don’t recognize that and buy the scientific arguments, it would surely be dishonest and wrong to rely on such inadequate methods. If we use science to persuade people of the truth of the gospel, then we may be found guilty of building with straw (see 1 Corinthians iii.13-15).

In case you were wondering…

You might object to what I have written, saying, “But logically, you should also say that we shouldn’t keep Christmas and Easter as festivals in the church.”

Yes. And?

I think Protector Cromwell was right.

Against Lent (2)

My second argument against Lent is from Colossians.

It must surely be conceded that Lent is not commanded in Scripture. It is therefore a human idea that it would be A Good Thing to set aside forty days of self-denial, reflection, and penitence for sin to prepare us for the remembrance of Christ’s resurrection at Easter. It is human wisdom to say that it is helpful for some people to do this. It is man’s idea of what good religious practice ought to be. Paul would say that this is inconsistent with the Christian life. If we are saved, then we have died with Christ and we have been made alive with him. We are no longer alive to the world, i.e. living for it and having our lives controlled by it so it is inappropriate to adopt its traditions and religious ideas.

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits [or principles] of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations – “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used) – according to human precept and teachings?” (Colossians ii.20-22)

The human practice of Lent and the abstinence that is advocated sounds very much like the human practice referred to here. It has the appearance of wisdom, Paul says. Isn’t that the reason Christians who don’t think it’s necessary but who think it’s helpful give: “It would be wise to give up something (or indeed, take up something) for Lent, it will make me more sorrowful for sin, I’ll grow in holiness, I’ll love Christ more, I’ll sin less, it will help me deny myself and live for Jesus, it would be a good thing for me to do. It seems wise.” But it doesn’t work, Paul says:

“These have the appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians ii.23)

Lent is human religion. It isn’t commanded by God. It isn’t one of the means of grace that God has appointed for his people to be built up. Therefore, it won’t work. It’s not going to restrain you from sin. It isn’t going to make you more godly.

Lest I sound too negative in these posts against Lent, let me offer something that is truly helpful for growth in holiness from Colossians:

(1) Meditate on heavenly things, make them the object of your thinking and strive to attain them – “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.” (Colossians iii.1-2) There’s a whole host of earthly things to avoid in verses 5-11 and heavenly things to seek after in verses 12-15.

(2) Be much in the reading and learning and application of Scripture, both on your own and with other believers. Have fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ. Minister the word to one another. Rebuke in love where necessary for the sake of godliness. This will involves singing – of Psalms as well as of hymns and spiritual songs, songs rich in Biblical content – with thankfulness. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (Colossians iii.16)

This is to characterize the ongoing life of the church, not just a few days in Spring. This is the way that, as God’s people, we will become more like the Lord Jesus, which is God’s will for us, for his glory’s sake.

Against Lent (1)

We have now entered into that period which has been traditionally kept as the season of Lent. While many brethren (note the small “b”) in Christ will say that the keeping of Lent is not commanded in Scripture therefore it should not be enforced upon anyone, they will also say that it is not wrong to keep Lent and if you find it helpful, then go ahead and keep it. We have freedom in Christ, after all. Now, within the bounds of Romans 14 I should not criticize individual believers for abstaining from certain things at certain times. However, it is my contention that the church of Christ should not keep the season of Lent. I argue from two sources: Galatians and Colossians.

First, Galatians. I will acknowledge from the outset that the problem in Galatia was that people had infiltrated the church and were advocating a return to the keeping of the Law-covenant, with its rituals and ceremonies, including circumcision and ceremonies as a means of salvation (see Galatians v.2-4). The old covenant stipulated the keeping of special days and months and seasons and years to remember God’s favour and his salvation, new moon festivals and special Sabbaths (not the weekly Sabbath, though), Feasts of Tabernacles and Weeks. Is not Lent in this mould, a season of penitence and self-denial to prepare for the joys of Easter, to remind us of our need for salvation so that we appreciate it more. Now, I’m not suggesting that people are saying that Lent is necessary for salvation. Nevertheless, some of the arguments the Apostle Paul sets forth to combat the Galatian error bears on the issue of Lent. Paul says that the Law-covenant was bearing children for slavery. By this he meant that prior to the coming of Christ, the people of God were held captive under the law and imprisoned by it, for the law was a guardian until Christ came. It showed that they deserved death for their sin. It showed their need for forgiveness. It pointed to the coming Saviour. Note that it was never intended that one was justified by keeping the Law. But Paul says that Christ has come, so God’s people are no longer under that covenant. We have no need for a guardian (Galatians iii.23-26). We are no longer in need of pointing to the Saviour who would come. He has come. Under the New Covenant, we are free from the law and its ceremonial requirements. We are told to “cast out the slave woman and her son”, i.e. this Law-covenant. We have been set free for freedom (Galatians v.1), that is to say, Christ by his death on the cross has set us free so that we should no longer be under its ceremonial rules and regulations. Paul commands the Galatians therefore not to submit again to that yoke of slavery, i.e. he commands them not to go back to living as a slave, trying to keep all the ceremonial requirements. (The moral law, of course, is binding on all Christians – more on this to follow at some point!) Even if one isn’t seeking to be justified by the law, it is perverse to use the freedom that Christ has won to go back to living as if we weren’t and it is disobedient to the commands of Scripture we find here.

It might be argued that the principle under the old covenant was that, human nature being what it is, people needed reminding of what they are like and what God has done. We are the same now. Therefore it is not wrong to have seasons now to do just that. So Lent is justified. However, the ceremonies that God ordained in the old covenant were for Israel as a church-state and were before Christ. They pointed forward to him. Christ, the one signified has now come and done away with all these things. We have the fullness of what the ceremonies and types promised. We are under a new administration of the covenant now. Human nature is the same, but it’s not as if our Lord has left us without ceremonies to remind us and build us up. He has given us the Lord’s Supper and baptism. If we carried out these ordinances as frequently as we ought – the Lord’s Supper weekly when we meet on the Lord’s Day and baptism whenever children are born to believers in the church, or when unbaptized adults have been converted (rather than leaving it for months, if not years and then doing lots of people all at once) then we would be amply reminded of God’s saving grace, our need for forgiveness, and what Christ has done for us.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it well:

“Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance [of all the promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision and other types and ordinances] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles, and is called the New Testament.”