Back to swrb
home page
BIBLICAL CIVIL
GOVERNMENT
VERSUS THE
BEAST; AND,
THE BASIS FOR
CIVIL RESISTANCE
© Greg Price, Oct., 1996
Reformation is desperately needed in our languishing nations. In the
past,
not only did biblical reformation sweep the church in doctrine, worship,
and government, but also reformation of biblical Christianity was
promoted and accelerated by Christian magistrates who wholeheartedly
supported and defended the ministry of the reformed churches.
Reformation is never easy. The truth is no more fashionable today than
it
was at the time of our reformed and covenanted forefathers. If we would
see reformation we must return to the old paths of our God and of our
forefathers. What is presented in the following pages is not a novel
view
of civil magistracy, but one which is believed to be both biblical and
representative of our reformed and presbyterian forefathers from the
covenanted reformation at the time of the Westminster Assembly. Civil
magistracy is a blessed ordinance of the living God, given to the human
family in order that it might reflect the order in which God so much
delights (ÒFor God is not the author of confusion, but of peaceÓ 1 Cor.
14:33). This ordinance should be so cherished by GodÕs people that when
the ruling civil magistrate cannot be owned as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ
within a nation, the hearts of GodÕs people both sadly bemoan that fact
and
earnestly pray that God would in His mercy remove His righteous anger
from the land and grant nursing fathers to the church. May God be
pleased to open the eyes of His people to the need for reformation in the
divine ordinance of civil magistracy.
1. The Triune God is the supreme ruler of the universe (ÒThe Lord God
omnipotent reignethÓ Rev. 19:6).
a. All civil, ecclesiastical, and domestic power (whether physical power
or moral power) find their original source in God.
b. Thus, all creaturely power and authority (in whatever sphere
exercised) is derivative from God (ÒFor of him, and through him, and to
him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. AmenÓ Rom. 11:36) and
accountable to God (ÒMy brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we
shall receive the greater condemnationÓ Jms. 3:1).
2. Civil magistracy is a divine ordinance immediately derived from God as
Creator (ÒLet every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is
no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of GodÓ Rom.
13:1,2).
Whereas ecclesiastical ministry is a divine ordinance immediately derived
from Christ as Mediator (ÒAnd he [i.e. ChristÑGLP] gave some, apostles;
and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors, and teachers;
for
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying
of
the body of ChristÓ Eph. 4:11,12).
a. Thus, civil magistracy is a divine ordinance founded upon the law of
nature (which law of nature was originally imprinted upon the conscience
of Adam in his unfallen state, and was subsequently summarized in the
decalogue, Ex. 20:3-17).
b. Even had Adam not fallen into sin, it seems unavoidable that there
would have been a need for civil order among a sinless race of millions
of
human beings (albeit, civil order without the power of the sword). For
angels though created without sin, were yet established according to a
divinely ordered government from the beginning (ÒFor by him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powersÓ Col. 1:16). Likewise, angels since the fall are ordered according
to
a government, both wicked angels (ÒFor we wrestle not against flesh and
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of
the
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high placesÓ Eph.
6:12) and holy angels (ÒBut, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came
to
help meÓ Dan. 10:13).
c. Thus, as Gillespie has correctly observed, magistracy as a divine
ordinance is founded in the law of nature, and therefore all nations
(whether Christian or non-Christian) are under its obligation:
But magistracy or civil government hath a foundation in the law of
nature and nations (yea, might and should have had place, and
been of use, though man had not sinned); therefore, the reason of
the proposition is because the law of nature and nations, and the
law which was written in manÕs heart, in his first creation, doth not
flow from Christ as Mediator, but from God as Creator.1
[F]or the political or civil power is grounded upon the law of nature
itself, and for that cause it is common to infidels with Christians;
the
power ecclesiastical dependeth immediately upon the positive
law of Christ alone: that [i.e. civil powerÑGLP] belongeth to the
universal dominion of God the Creator over all nations; but this [i.e.
ecclesiastical powerÑGLP] unto the special and economical kingdom of
Christ the Mediator, which he exerciseth in the church alone, and
which is not of this world.2
3. Civil magistracy is Òthe minister of God to thee for goodÓ (Rom.
13:4).
a. Hence, civil government serves God (according to His moral law), and
serves the people for their good (according to that same moral law).
b. The ÒgoodÓ which Òthe minister of GodÓ administers on behalf of his
subjects must be measured according to GodÕs moral law in nature within a
heathen nation (ÒFor when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a
law
unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their heartsÓ
Rom. 2:14,15) and according to GodÕs moral law in Scripture within a
Christian nation (ÒAll 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, thoroughly furnished
unto all good worksÓ
2 Tim. 3:16,17).
c. It is not merely that civil magistracy Òshould be the minister of God
to thee for goodÓ, but rather that civil magistracy Òis the minister of
God to
thee for goodÓ (Rom. 13:4).
d. If it does not serve this end, then according to Paul it is not the
divine ordinance of civil magistracy, Òfor the throne is established by
righteousnessÓ (Prov. 16:12).
4. Though civil government is founded upon God as Creator, it is
administered by Christ as Mediator.
a. God has put all things under the feet of Christ, so that Christ as
mediatorial head might govern all things to the benefit of the church
(Eph.
1:22; cf. Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:27).
b. Civil government is pre-eminently included among the Òall thingsÓ
that God has given to Christ for the benefit of the church (ÒAnd kings
shall
be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall
bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust
of
thy feetÓ Is. 49:23; cf. Ps. 2:1-12; Ezra 1:1-4; Is. 60:1-22).
c. Because God has ordained civil magistracy for the benefit of the
church, prayer is to be made on behalf of Òkings, and all that are in
authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness
and
honestyÓ
(1 Tim. 2:2).
5. Civil magistracy is Òthe ordinance of GodÓ and Òthe minister of God to
thee for goodÓ by means of: (a) institution (i.e. meeting the
qualifications
for civil magistracy as found in GodÕs moral law); and by means of (b)
constitution (i.e. securing the consent of the people and the
magistrate's
investiture of power by means of a covenant between himself and the
people).
a. Note the following biblical passages which confirm that civil
magistracy is instituted upon the foundation of the moral law :
(1) Exodus 18:21
Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people, able men, such as
fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over
them to be rulers.
(2) Deuteronomy 17:14,15,18,19
When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I
will
set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou
shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God
shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king
over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy
brother. . . . And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his
kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of
that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with
him,
and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn
to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these
statutes, to do them. . . .
(3) 2 Samuel 23:2,3
The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth
over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
(4) Job 34:17
Shall even he that hateth right govern?
(5) Psalm 94:20
Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee [i.e with GodÑ
GLP], which frameth mischief by a law?
(6) Proverbs 16:12
It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is
established by righteousness.
(7) Isaiah 10:1
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write
grievousness which they have prescribed.
(8) Romans 13:3,4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. . . . For he
is a
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil,
be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth
evil.
b. Note the following historical quotations from our reformed
forefathers and creeds which corroborate the Scriptures by declaring that
civil magistracy is instituted to meet certain moral obligations:
(1) John Calvin
Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live
among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to
defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to
adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to
civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote
general peace and tranquility. 3
It [i.e. civil governmentÑGLP] does not, I repeat, look to this only,
but
also prevents idolatry, sacrilege against GodÕs name, blasphemies
against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from
arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public
peace from being disturbed; it provides that each man may keep his
property safe and sound; that men may carry on blameless
intercourse among themselves; that honesty and modesty may be
preserved among men. In short, it provides that a public
manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that
humanity be maintained among men. 4
Now in this place we ought to explain in passing the office of the
magistrates, how it is described in the Word of God and the things in
which it consists. If Scripture did not teach that it extends to both
Tables of the Law, we could learn this from secular writers: for no
one has discussed the office of magistrates, the making of laws,
and public welfare, without beginning at religion and divine worship. . .
.
Since, therefore, among all philosophers religion takes first place,
and
since this fact has always been observed by universal consent of all
nations, let Christian princes and magistrates be ashamed of their
negligence if they do not apply themselves to this concern.
And we have already shown that these duties are especially
enjoined upon them by God; and it is fitting that they should labor to
protect and assert the honor of him whose representatives they are,
and by whose grace they govern. 5
(2) John Knox
Now, if the moral law is the constant and unchangeable will of God, to
which the Gentile is no less bound than was the Jew; and if God wills,
that amongst the Gentiles the ministers and executors of his
law be now appointed, as sometimes they were appointed
amongst the Jews; further, if the execution of justice is no less
requisite in the policy of the Gentiles, than ever it was amongst the
Jews; what man can be so foolish to suppose or believe, that God
will now admit those persons to sit in judgment, or to reign over
men in the commonwealth of the Gentiles, whom he by his
expressed word and ordinance did before debar and exclude from
the same? 6
No manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God's holy
precepts, ought to be promoted to any public regiment [i.e.
governmentÑGLP], honour, or dignity, in any realm, province, or
city that has subjected itself to his blessed evangel. 7
(3) George Buchanan
B.--Hence we shall find the voice of the king and of the law to be the
same. But whence is their authority derived? The kingÕs from
the law or the lawÕs from the king?
M.--The kingÕs from the law.
B.--How do you come at that conclusion?
M.--By considering that a king is not intended for restraining the
law, but the law for restraining the king; and it is from the law that
a king derives his quality of royalty; since without it he would be
a tyrant.
B.--The law then is paramount to the king, and serves to direct and
moderate his passions and actions. 8
(4) Samuel Rutherford
So, if the king be a living law by office, and the law put in execution
which God hath commanded, then, as the moral law is by divine
institution, so must the officer of God be . . . the keeper, preserver,
and
avenger of GodÕs law. 9
But then, this which they call perogative royal, is no more than a
power to govern according to law . . . . 10
(5) George Gillespie
41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law, may
and ought first and chiefly to take care of GodÕs glory, and (according
to
his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve religion when
pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted: and also to
provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also and synods, as
likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists, blasphemers,
heretics and schismatics, as the violators of justice and civil peace.
11
(6) Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici or The Divine Right of
Church Government, originally asserted by the Ministers of Sion College,
London (1646)
Nor is this only our private judgment, or the opinion of some few
particular persons touching the granting or bounding of the
magistrate's power about matters of religion; but with us we have
the suffrage of many reformed churches, who, in their Confessions of
Faith published to the world, do fully and clearly express
themselves to the same effect.
The Helvetian church [ÒThe First Confession of HelvetiaÓ 1536ÑGLP]
thus: Since every magistrate is of God, it is (unless he would
exercise tyranny) his chief duty, all blasphemy being repressed, to
defend and provide for religion, and to execute this to his utmost
strength, as the prophet teacheth out of the word; in which respect
the pure and free preaching of God's word, a right, diligent, and
well-instituted discipline of youth, citizens and scholars; a just and
liberal maintenance of the ministers of the church, and a
solicitous care of the poor, (whereunto all ecclesiastical means
belong,) have the first place. After this, &c.
The French churches [ÒThe Confession of FranceÓ 1559ÑGLP] thus: He
also therefore committed the sword into the magistrates' hands,
that they might repress faults committed not only against the second
table, but also against the first. . . .
The Belgic church [ÒThe Belgic ConfessionÓ 1566ÑGLP] thus:
Therefore he hath armed the magistrates with a sword, that they
may punish the bad and defend the good. Furthermore, it is their
duty not only to be solicitous about preserving of civil polity, but
also
to give diligence that the sacred ministry may be preserved, all
idolatry and adulterate worship of God may be taken out of the way,
the kingdom of antichrist may be pulled down, but Christ's kingdom
propagated. . . . 12
(7) ÒThe Confession of SaxonyÓ (1551)
First, God would that the magistrate without all doubt should sound
forth the voice of the moral law among men touching discipline,
according to the Ten Commandments, or the law natural; that
is he would first, by the voice of the magistrate, have sovereign
and immutable laws to be propounded, forbidding the worship of
idols, blasphemies, perjuries, unjust murders, wandering lusts, breach
of wedlock, thefts and frauds in bargains, in contracts, and in
judgments. . . . And well hath it been said of old, ÔThe magistrate is
the keeper of the law;Õ that is, of the First and Second Table, as
concerning discipline and good order.Ó 13
(8) ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ of Scotland (1560)
Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that
chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the
religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil
policy,
but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of
idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat,
Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that
case, may be espied. 14
(9) ÒThe National CovenantÓ of Scotland (1638)
That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and reception of their
princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their
solemn oath, in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring the
whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to
the uttermost of their power, according as he hath required in his most
holy word, contained in the Old and New Testament; and according to the
same word shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the
preaching of his holy word, the due and right ministration of the
sacraments now received and preached within this realm,
(according to the Confession of Faith immediately preceding) and
shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same;
and shall rule the people committed to their charge, according to the
will and command of God revealed in his foresaid word, and
according to the laudable laws and constitutions received in this
realm,
nowise repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; and shall
procure, to the uttermost of their power, to the kirk of God, and whole
Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming: and that
they shall be careful to root out of their empire all hereticks and
enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the
true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes. 15
(10) ÒThe Solemn League and CovenantÓ Of The Three Kingdoms Of
Scotland, England, And Ireland (1643)
III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our
several avocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives,
mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments,
and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend
the KingÕs MajestyÕs person and authority, in the
preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the
kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our consciences of
our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish
his MajestyÕs just power and greatness. 16
(11) ÒThe Westminster Confession of FaithÓ (1647)
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of
the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom
of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take
order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth
of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be
suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline
prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled,
administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he
hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that
whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. 17
(12) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649)
It doth therefore concerne all ranks and conditions of persons to be
the more warie and circumspect, especially in that which concerns the
National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, that before
his Majestie [i.e. Charles IIÑGLP] be admitted to the exercise of his
Royall Power, that by and attour the Oath of Coronation, he shall
assure and declare by his Solemn Oath under his hand and seal his
allowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and
Covenant, and obligation to prosecute the ends thereof in his Station
and Calling, and that he shall for himself and his successours, consent
and agree to Acts of Parliament, injoyning the Solemn League and
Covenant, and fully Establishing Presbyterial Government, the
Directory of Worship, the Confession of Faith and Catechisme, as
they are approven by the General Assembly of this Kirk and
Parliament of this Kingdom, in all his Majesties Dominions, and that he
shall never make opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any
change thereof. 18
c. Civil magistracy is recognized and acknowledged to be Òthe ordinance
of GodÓ and Òthe minister of God to thee for goodÓ not only by means of
institution (i.e. meeting the qualifications for civil magistracy as
found in
GodÕs moral law in nature and in Scripture), but also by means of
constitution (i.e. securing the consent of the people and being invested
with power by means of a covenant [whether explicit or implicit] between
the magistrate and the people). Note the following biblical passages
which
confirm that the office of civil magistracy is ordained by God, but that
the
civil magistrate himself is constituted by consent of and covenant with
the
people.
(1) Deuteronomy 17:14,15 (emphases added)
When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I
will
set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou
shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God
shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king
over thee.
(2) Judges 8:22 (emphases added)
Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us.
(3) Judges 9:6 (emphases added)
And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of
Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king.
(4) Judges 11:11 (emphases added)
Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made
him head and captain over them.
(5) 1 Samuel 11:15 (emphases added)
And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king
before the LORD in Gilgal.
(6) 1 Chronicles 12:38 (emphases added)
All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect
heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest
also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.
(7) 2 Samuel 16:18 (emphases added)
And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay; but whom the LORD, and this
people, and all the men of Israel, choose, his will I be, and with him
will I abide.
(8) 2 Kings 14:21 (emphases added)
And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years
old, and made him king.
(9) 2 Chronicles 23:3 (emphases added)
And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house
of God.
d. Not only does GodÕs Word establish that the civil magistrate is
constituted and invested with power by the people, but this is confirmed
by our reformed forefathers as well.
(1) John Knox
It is not birth only, nor propinquity [i.e. nearnessÑGLP] of blood,
that
makes a king lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ
Jesus and his eternal verity; but in his election must the ordinance,
which God has established in the election of inferior judges, be
observed. 19
But if either rashly they have promoted any manifestly wicked, or
yet ignorantly have chosen such a one, as after declares himself
unworthy of regiment above the people of God (and such be all
idolaters and cruel persecutors), most justly may the same men
depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they did nominate,
appoint, and elect. 20
(2) Samuel Rutherford
If God doth regulate his people in making this man king, not that
man, then he thereby insinuateth that the people have a power to
make this man king, and not that man. But God doth regulate his
people in making a king; therefore the people have a power to
make this man, not that man king. 21
Therefore it remaineth only that the suffrages of the people of God is
that just title and divine calling that kings have now to their
crowns. 22
(3) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649)
It doth therefore concerne all ranks and conditions of persons to be the
more warie and circumspect, especially in that which concerns the
National
Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, that before his Majestie
[i.e. Charles II] be admitted to the exercise of his Royall Power, that
by and
attour the Oath of Coronation, he shall assure and declare by his Solemn
Oath under his hand and seal his allowance of the National Covenant, and
of the Solemn League and Covenant, and obligation to prosecute the ends
thereof in his Station and Calling, and that he shall for himself and his
successours, consent and agree to Acts of Parliament, injoyning the
Solemn
League and Covenant, and fully Establishing Presbyterial Government, the
Directory of Worship, the Confession of Faith and Catechisme, as they are
approven by the General Assembly of this Kirk and Parliament of this
Kingdom, in all his Majesties Dominions, and that he shall never make
opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof. 23
6. Subjection for conscience sake, tribute, fear, and honor is
wholeheartedly due to civil magistracy that can be identified as Òthe
minister of God to thee for goodÓ (Rom. 13:4). This alone is Òthe
ordinance
of GodÓ (Rom. 13:2).
a. It is a flagrant violation of GodÕs moral law (the fifth commandment)
to resist the ordinance of civil magistracy, for in so doing, one is
resisting
God (ÒWhosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnationÓ Rom.
13:2).
b. To submit to civil authority Òfor conscience sakeÓ certainly implies
that the civil magistracy in question is approved both by GodÕs moral law
and by the people within the kingdom.
c. John Knox establishes that only lawful magistrates (not tyrants) are
Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, and therefore are to be given the submission
required by the apostle Paul in Romans 13:
As the apostle in these words [i.e. Rom. 13:1-4ÑGLP] most straitly
commanded obedience to be given to lawful powers, pronouncing GodÕs
wrath and vengeance against such as shall resist the ordinance of God. .
. .
And this one point I wish your wisdoms deeply to consider, that God has
not placed you above your brethren to reign as tyrants without respect of
their profit and commodity. You hear the Holy Ghost witness the
contrary,
affirming that all lawful powers are GodÕs ministers, ordained for the
wealth [well-beingÑthe editor has added this explanatory note], profit,
and
salvation of their subjects, and not for their destruction. Could it be
said (I
beseech you) that magistrates, enclosing their subjects in a city without
all
victuals, or giving unto them no other victuals but such as were
poisoned,
did rule for the profit of their subjects? I trust that none would be so
foolish as so to affirm; but that rather every discreet person would
boldly
affirm, that such as did so were tyrants unworthy of all regiment [i.e.
governmentÑGLP].24
d. Christopher Goodman ( a contemporary of Knox), who received the
wrath and threats of Mary Tudor of England for his uncompromising
stance as to what constituted lawful civil magistracy, has written:
Otherwise, if without fear they [i.e. civil magistratesÑGLP] transgress
GodÕs laws themselves and command others to do the like, then have
they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise their subjects
did owe unto them: and ought no more to be taken for magistrates: but
punished as private transgressors. . . .25
e. ÒThe Confession of SaxonyÓ (1551) repeatedly draws the readerÕs
attention to the word ÒlawfulÓ in the article entitled ÒOf the Civil
MagistrateÓ (thus recognizing that there is a necessary distinction to be
drawn between a lawful and unlawful magistrate, and that conscientious
subjection is due to the lawful magistrate alone).
We teach, therefore, that in the whole doctrine of God delivered by
the Apostles and Prophets, the order and degrees of the civil state
are avouched; and that magistrates, laws, judgments, and the
lawful society of mankind, are not by chance sprung up among
men: and that, although there be many horrible confusions,
which grow from the devil, and the madness of men, yet that the
lawful government and society of men is ordained of God. . . . This
heavenly doctrine we propound unto the churches, which
establisheth lawful authority, and the whole civil state. . . . His
wisdom is declared by order; which consists in the discerning of
virtues and vices, and in the associating of mankind under lawful
governments, and by contracts arranged in marvellous wisdom.26
f. ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ of Scotland (1560) affirms the duty of all
men to be subject to the supreme authority as GodÕs ordinance so long as
the magistrate does that which belongs to his office:
So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole
state of civil policies, now long established; we affirm the same men
not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against
GodÕs expressed will. . . . And therefore we confess and avow,
that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which
appertains to his charge), do resist GodÕs ordinance, and therefore
cannot be guiltless. 27
g. ÒThe Belgic ConfessionÓ (1566) was written in the heat of political
upheaval within France, and likewise specifies that Christians are to be
subject to lawful magistrates (for if the qualification ÒlawfulÓ simply
means
any ruler, whether he be tyrant or nursing father, then the qualification
is
meaningless and unnecessary).
Moreover all men, of what dignity, condition, or state soever they be,
ought to be subject to their lawful magistrates, and pay unto them
subsidies and tributes, and obey them in all things which are not
repugnant to the word of God. 28
h. ÒThe Westminster Confession of FaithÓ (1647), acknowledged by
many to be the most precise and faithful creed of orthodox Christianity,
specifically states that only ÒlawfulÓ civil power is not to be resisted
as Òthe
ordinance of God.Ó Thus, it follows (from not just one reformed
theologian,
but from this entire assembly of reformed divines who met over a period
of five years) that since only ÒlawfulÓ civil power is Òthe ordinance of
GodÓ,
then only ÒlawfulÓ civil magistracy is to be submitted to for conscience
sake, and honored as Òthe minister of God to thee for good.Ó The
reformed
divines of the Westminster Assembly manifestly acknowledged a
necessary distinction between lawful and unlawful magistracy.
And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty
which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy,
but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon
pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the
lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical,
resist
the ordinance of God. 29
7. ÒThe ordinance of GodÓ (Rom. 13:2) is not equivalent to every civil
authority that God in His providence places upon a throne. That which
God
directs in history by His providence is not necessarily that which He
orders
by His moral precepts (and it is by His moral precepts that civil
magistracy
is instituted). Therefore, it must be maintained that Òthe ordinance of
GodÓ
is determined by the moral and revealed will of God (rather than by His
providential will). For if there is no distinction established between
GodÕs
moral will and GodÕs providential will in determining who is Òthe
ordinance
of GodÓ the following errors will certainly result:
a. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of
God and the providential will of God, then providence is equally in all
respects the rule of duty, as much as is the precept. Then no matter how
evil a civil magistrate becomes he must be acknowledged to be Òthe
ordinance of GodÓ and Òthe minister of God to thee for good.Ó
b. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of
God and the providential will of God, then providence must express GodÕs
approbation and institution in civil government as much as His preceptive
will. One must conclude then that anything God states in His moral law
concerning civil government is merely a suggestion (rather than a moral
commandment) from God which civil magistrates may take or leave at
their own discretion.
c. If there is no difference between the providential will of God and
the
moral will of God, then why would only murderers and thieves who ascend
to the civil throne be acknowledged as Òthe ministers of God to thee for
goodÓ, and not the murderer or the thief who usurps the place of a father
as head in his family, or who slaughters the elders of a church and
claims
authority to rule in the church? If one would not recognize the tyrant
who
usurps the leadership in a family or a church as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ,
why should he recognize the tyrant who usurps the leadership in a nation?
d. If, in fact, we are to acknowledge as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ whoever
may sit upon a throne (and merely because he has gained the scepter to
the throne in GodÕs providence), then we must acknowledge as Òthe
minister of God to thee for goodÓ the beast of Revelation (i.e. the
tyrannical
civil power of anti-Christ Rome) who receives his power from Satan (Rev.
13:2,4), who is worshipped by all those who dwell on the earth (Rev.
13:4),
who blasphemes God in his official capacity (Rev. 13:6), and who murders
and persecutes GodÕs people. Furthermore, we must in all consistency
acknowledge Satan as Òthe minister of God to thee for goodÓ, for he is
the
one who gives the beast his power and who is designated Òthe prince of
this worldÓ (Jn. 12:31; Jn. 14:30)
e. Such a fallacious view of civil magistracy would justify the very sin
of resistance against a lawful civil government which Paul forbids
(ÒWhosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
GodÓ
Rom. 13:2). For whoever could successfully gain the scepter to the
throne
by GodÕs providential will (even if it was to remove the scepter from the
hands of a righteous ruler) would become Òthe ordinance of GodÓ to whom
the people must submit for conscience sake and honor as Òthe minister of
God to thee for good.Ó
f. Or this erroneous view of civil magistracy could just as well forbid
and renounce all resistance (under any condition) against the civil
magistrate that is in power (regardless of his wicked tyranny), and in so
doing denounce all revolutions against tyranny as wicked (e.g. the
revolutions of righteous judges and kings against tyranny found in the
pages of Scripture; or the revolutions against tyranny in history as in
the
case of the Dutch under William of Orange against the Spanish, or the
resistance of Scotland against the tyranny of Charles I, or the U.S. war
for
independence against the tyranny of the king of England; or even the
resistance of a Christian against Satan who gives to the beast his civil
power to rule).
g. This unbiblical view of civil magistracy is contrary to the Word of
God wherein the Spirit of God testifies that the actual possession of the
throne, under the providential power of God, may be in the hands of one
ruler, while the moral power and Òordinance of GodÓ is in the hands of
another.
(1) Though Absalom had won the hearts of the people of Israel
and had removed David from the throne (2 Sam. 15-18), did he by his
mere possession of the throne become Òthe ordinance of God?Ó If not,
then
mere possession of civil power does not institute nor constitute one as
Òthe
minister of God to thee for good.Ó Furthermore, was David divested of
his
lawful authority to rule upon the throne of Israel because he was
unseated
by his son?
(2) Though wicked Athaliah had reached the throne of Judah (in
GodÕs providence) by murdering all her royal grandsons (except Joash who
was hidden from her), she was not acknowledged to be Òthe ordinance of
God.Ó Rather she was an usurper of the throne, and was rightfully slain
as
a tyrant when Joash (Òthe ordinance of GodÓ) ascended to the throne (2
Chron. 22:10-23:15).
(3) Though Jehoram was by GodÕs providence ruler of the northern
kingdom of Israel, Elisha the prophet would not give to him the
conscientious subjection or honor which was due Òthe ordinance of GodÓ
(ÒAnd Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand,
surely,
were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah,
I
would not look toward thee, nor see theeÓ 2 Kgs. 3:14).
(4) God makes it abundantly clear in His word that He does not
recognize as His ÒordinanceÓ or as His ÒministerÓ every magistrate that
sits
upon a throne, for in rebuking the northern kingdom of Israel for their
wickedness, He declares: ÒThey have set up kings, but not by me: they
have made princes, and I knew it notÓ (Hos. 8:4). If these kings were
not
established according to GodÕs moral law, then they were not given
authority to rule by God and cannot be Òthe minister of God to thee for
good.Ó
(5) Therefore, the Òhigher powersÓ (Rom. 13:1) to which Christians
are to be subject for conscience sake, the ÒpowersÓ that are ordained of
God, the ÒpowersÓ that are Òthe minister of God to thee for goodÓ, and
the
ÒpowersÓ that are to be honored, are those who hold a moral power
(according to GodÕs moral law in nature and in Scripture) to the throne,
not
those who merely hold a military power or popular power to the throne
(according to GodÕs sovereign providence) .
8. Tyrants who claim regal authority to rule over a kingdom cannot
receive the conscientious subjection of Christians.
a. Christians can no more submit for conscience sake to a tyrant who
sits upon the throne (by GodÕs providence) than they can submit for
conscience sake to the beast (Rev. 13:1-8) or to Satan who both rule by
GodÕs providential will.
b. In fact, tyrants ought to be actively resisted for conscience sake by
the following means: not granting to them conscientious subjection, not
acknowledging them to be the ordinance of God, not honoring them as the
minister of God to thee for good, disobeying their unlawful commands,
testifying against their wicked rule, praying for the demise of their
throne
which is established upon wickedness, fleeing their wrath when necessary,
and as a last resort revolting against their tyrannical rule when force
is
necessary for self-defence.
c. This is not sedition, treason, nor revolutionary anarchy, unless one
is
also willing to condemn the approved testimony of saints in biblical
history
and in extra-biblical history of these crimes (yea even willing to
condemn
God Himself for approving such civil resistance), for such a view of
lawful
resistance against tyrants is neither foreign to Scripture nor to our
reformed forefathers.
d. Consider the following incidents of lawful resistance against tyrants
in Scripture (this list could easily be multiplied so as to include many
more
examples, but this should suffice to demonstrate the biblical warrant of
lawful resistance against tyrants).
.
(1) Abraham resisted the wicked alliance of kings who had
conquered Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not acknowledge them to be Òthe
minister of GodÓ merely because they had gained a military power to rule
(in GodÕs providence), but rather Abraham defeated them and rescued Lot
from their clutches (Gen. 14:13-16).
(2) Moses did not recognize Pharaoh as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, but
resisted his tyranny and delivered Israel from servitude in Egypt (Ex. 7-
14).
(3) Judges such as Othniel (Judg. 3:8-11), Ehud (Judg. 3:12-30),
Shamgar (Judg. 3:31), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4), Gideon (Judg. 6-8),
Jephthah (Judg.11-12), and Samson (Judg. 13-16) resisted tyrants who
ruled over Israel rather than granting to them subjection for conscience
sake.
(4) David did not subject himself for conscience sake to Absalom as
a Òhigher powerÓ to whom honor was due as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, but
resisted him even though Absalom had won the hearts of all the people of
Israel and had gained military control of Israel (2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam.
18:6-
8).
(5) Elijah did not honor Ahab as Òthe minister of GodÓ for good, but
resisted him by fleeing from him and his wicked queen (1 Kgs. 17:3;
1 Kgs. 19:3), and by taking the sword from the hands of Ahab so that he
and the people slew the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18:40).
(6) Elijah did not acknowledge the lawful authority of king Ahaziah
to rule over Israel, for he resisted the king by not obeying the kingÕs
order
to compear before him and even brought GodÕs fiery judgment upon the
representatives of AhaziahÕs authority (2 Kgs. 1:9-13).
(7) Jehoiada did not subject himself for conscience sake to the
tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death even though she accused all those
who resisted her of treason (2 Chron. 23:12-15).
(8) God Himself resisted the idolatrous kings of Israel by not
acknowledging them to be ministers whom He appointed (Hos. 8:4).
(9) Jesus instructed His disciples that when they were delivered up
to gentile kings for ChristÕs sake, rather than acknowledging them to be
Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, they were to testify against them (Mt. 10:18),
and
to flee their tyranny rather than submit to them for conscience sake (Mt.
10:23).
(10) God gives wings to the church to flee from the persecution
which Satan brings against her by means of tyrannical civil and
ecclesiastical government rather than commanding the church to render
conscientious subjection to such tyranny (Rev. 12:14).
(11) ÒThe prince of this worldÓ (Jn. 14:30) is to be resisted by
Christians (Jms. 4:7). If Satan (who grants power to wicked tyrants to
rule)
is to be resisted, should not tyrants who rule by SatanÕs wicked power
also
be resisted? If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how
can
we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power ?
b. The following quotations from reformed forefathers and creeds also
confirm that habitual tyranny upon a throne is not Òthe ordinance of
GodÓ,
and must be resisted.
(1) John Calvin
For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to
restrain the willfulness of kings . . . I am so far from forbidding
them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce
licentiousness of kings, that , if they wink at kings who violently
fall
upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their
dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray
the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been
appointed protectors by GodÕs ordinance. 30
For earthly princes lay aside all their power when they rise up
against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of
mankind. We ought rather utterly to defy than to obey them
whenever they are so restive [i.e. obstinately disobedientÑGLP]
and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon
his
throne and draw him down from heaven.31
(2) John Ponet
If a prince rob and spoil his subjects, it is theft, and as a thief
[heÑGLP]
ought to be punished. If he kill and murder them contrary or without the
laws of his country, it is murder, and as a murderer he ought to be
punished. If he commit adultery, he is an adulterer and ought to be
punished with the same pains that others be. If he violently ravish
menÕs
wives, daughters, or maidens, the laws that are made against ravishers,
ought to be executed on him. If he go about to betray his country, and
to
bring the people under a foreign power: he is a traitor, and as a traitor
he
ought to suffer.32
(3) John Knox
3. Neither can oath nor promise bind any such people to obey and
maintain tyrants against God and against his truth known.
4. But if either rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked
person, or yet ignorantly have chosen such a one, as after
declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God
(and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors), most justly may
the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they
did nominate, appoint, and elect. 33
(4) Christopher Goodman
Otherwise, if without fear they [i.e. civil magistratesÑGLP] transgress
GodÕs laws themselves and command others to do the like, then have
they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise their subjects
did owe unto them: and ought no more to be taken for magistrates:
but punished as private transgressors. . . .34
[T]he apostle saith: There is no power but of God [Rom. 13:1ÑGLP]:
yet doth he not here mean any other powers, but such as are orderly
and lawfully institute of God. Either else should he approve all
tyranny and oppression, which cometh to any commonwealth by
means of wicked and ungodly rulers, which are to be called rightly
disorders, and subversions in commonwealths, and not GodÕs ordinance.
For he never ordained any laws to approve, but to reprove and
punish tyrants, idolaters, papists and oppressors. Then when
they [i.e. rulersÑGLP] are such, they are not GodÕs ordinance. And
in disobeying and resisting such, we do not resist GodÕs ordinance,
but Satan, and our sin, which is the cause of such. Or else, if we
shall
so conclude with the words of the Apostle [i.e. Paul in Rom. 13:1,2Ñ
GLP], that all powers whatsoever they be must be obeyed and not
resisted, then must we confess also, that Satan and all his infernal
powers are to be obeyed.35
But where as the kings or rulers are become altogether blasphemers
of God, and oppressors and murderers of their subjects, then ought
they to be acconpted [i.e. accountedÑGLP] no more kings or lawful
magistrates, but as private men: and to be examined, accused,
condemned and punished by the law of God, whereunto they are
and ought to be subject, and being convicted and punished by that law,
it is not manÕs but GodÕs doing: who as he doth appoint such magistrates
over his people by his law, so doth he condemn as well them as the
people transgressing against the law. For with God there is no
respect of persons. . . .36
(5) Junius Brutus
The question is , If it be lawful to resist a prince violating the law
of
God, or ruinating the church, or hindering the restoring of it? If
we hold ourselves to the tenure of the Holy Scripture it will resolve
us. For, if in this case it had been lawful to the Jewish people
(the which may be easily gathered from the books of the Old
Testament), yea, if it had been enjoined them, I believe it will not be
denied, that the same must be allowed to the whole people of any
Christian kingdom or country whatsoever. 37
It is then lawful for Israel to resist the king, who would overthrow
the law of God and abolish His church; and not only so, but also they
ought to know that in neglecting to perform this duty, they make
themselves culpable of the same crime, and shall bear the like
punishment with their king. 38
If their [i.e. the civil magistrateÕsÑGLP] assaults be verbal, their
defence must be likewise verbal; if the sword be drawn against
them, they may also take arms, and fight either with tongue or hand,
as occasion is. . . . 39
(6) George Buchanan
But those [i.e. civil magistratesÑGLP] who openly exercise their
power, not for the country, but for themselves, and pay no regard
to the public interest, but to their own gratification; who reckon
the weakness of their fellow-citizens the establishment of their
own authority, and who imagine royalty to be, not a charge entrusted
to them by God, but a prey offered to their rapacity, are not connected
with us by any civil or human tie, but ought to be put under an
interdict [i.e. cut off from civil authorityÑGLP], as open enemies to
God and man. 40
(7) Henry Bullinger
So then, verily, we ought not at any time to defend the tyrannical
power, and say that it is of God: for tyranny is not divine, but a
devilish, kind of government; and tyrants themselves are properly the
servants of the devil, and not of God. . . .41
(8) Samuel Rutherford
That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can
tie none to subjection, but is a mere tyrannical power and
unlawful; and if it tie not to subjection, it may lawfully be
resisted. 42
That to resist the king or parliament, is to resist them while as they
are doing the thing that appertaineth to their charge, and while
they vigilantly travel in the execution of their office. But
while king and parliament do acts of tyranny against GodÕs law, and all
good laws of men, they do not the things that appertain to their
charge and the execution of their office; therefore, by our Confession
[i.e.
the Scottish Confession of Faith, 1560ÑGLP], to resist them in
tyrannical acts is not to resist the ordinance of God. 43
(9) John Brown of Wamphray
There is great difference to be put betwixt actual disobeying of,
rebelling against, and violently, with force of arms, resisting the
lawful magistrateÕs doing his duty, and commanding just things,
warranted by the laws of God and the land, and [on the other
handÑGLP] disobeying his unjust acts, and resisting his violent,
tyrannical, oppressing, plundering, spoiling and killing armies. The
former is a resisting of the very ordinance of God, forbidden [inÑ
GLP] Rom. xiii., where the Apostle is speaking of the civil magistrate
doing his duty, and, in his place, as GodÕs deputy, exercising his
office; but, in the other case, the magistrate is out of his function
and
calling; for God giveth no command to do evil, nor to tyrannise. He is
not GodÕs vicegerent when he playeth the tyrant, and therefore he may
be resisted and opposed without any violence done to the office or
ordinance of God. . . . for it is only powers that are ordained of God
that
must not be resisted; and tyrants, or magistrates turning tyrants, and
exercising tyranny, cannot be called the ordinance of God. . . and so
there is no danger in resisting such acts of tyranny; for tyrants
exercising tyranny are no terror to evil-doers, but, on the
contrary, they are a terror to good works; and therefore that place,
Rom.
xiii., cannot be understood of tyrants. It is a true and a worthy
saying of famous Mr. Knox, in his History of Scotland, lib. 2, p. 141,
ÒThere is a great difference betwixt the authority which is GodÕs
ordinance and the persons of those who are placed in authority. The
authority and GodÕs ordinance can never do wrong, but the corrupt
person placed in authority may offend: so that the king, as king, is one
thing, and the king acting in tyranny is another thingÓ . . . .
Tyranny is
one thing and the office of the king is another thing. . . . 44
(10) Alexander Shields
So that in conscience, we are no more free to prostitute our loyalty
and liberty absolutely, in owning every possessor of the magistracy;
than we are free to prostitute our religion and faith implicitly, in
owning every pretender to the ministry. 45
But now when tyrants go for magistrates, lest my plea against
owning tyranny, should be mistaken, as if it were a pleading for
anarchy, I must assert, that I and all those I am vindicating, are for
magistracy, as being of divine original, institute for the common
good of human and Christian societies, whereunto every soul must be
subject. . . and not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. . .
which
whosoever resisteth, resisteth the ordinance of God, and against
which rebellion is a damnable sin. . . . We would give unto Caesar the
things that are CaesarÕs, and to God the things that are GodÕs; but to
tyrants, that usurp and pervert both the things of God and of Caesar,
and of the peoples liberties, we can render none of them, neither
GodÕs, nor CaesarÕs, nor our own: nor can we from conscience give
him any other deference, but as an enemy to all, even to God, to Caesar,
and the people. 46
It is not any one or two acts contrary to the royal covenant or office,
that doth denude a man of the royal dignity, that God and the
people gave him. . . . There is a great difference between a tyrant in
act, and a tyrant in habit; the first does not cease to be a king.
But
on the other hand, as every thing will not make a magistrate
a tyrant; so nothing will make a tyrant by habit a magistrate. 47
(11) ÒThe First Helvetic ConfessionÓ (1536)
Seeing that every magistrate is of God, his chief duty (except it
please him to exercise a tyranny) consisteth in this: to defend
and protect religion from all blasphemy . . . .48
(12) ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ of Scotland (1560)
[Addressing sin which God finds Òmost odious, which always
displeases him, and provokes him to angerÓ is the following sinÑGLP]
to disobey or resist any that God has placed in authority (while
they pass not over the bounds of their office).49
And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme
power (doing that which appertains to his charge), do resist GodÕs
ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. 50
(13) ÒThe Belgic ConfessionÓ (1566)
Moreover all men, of what dignity, condition, or state soever they be,
ought to be subject to their lawful magistrates, and pay unto them
subsidies and tributes, and obey them in all things which are not
repugnant to the word of God.51
(14) ÒThe Westminster Confession of FaithÓ (1647)
And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty
which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy,
but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon
pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or
the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical,
resist
the ordinance of God.52
If it is the duty of Christians not to resist ÒlawfulÓ civil authority
(as clearly
affirmed in ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ, then it is also the duty of
Christians
to resist ÒunlawfulÓ civil authority in as much as Òwhere a duty is
commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden
[e.g. as when the Word of God forbids resisting lawful civil magistracy
in
Rom. 13:2ÑGLP] the contrary duty is commanded [e.g. resisting unlawful
civil magistracyÑGLP].Ó 53
(15) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
But if his Majesty [Charles IIÑGLP], or any having, or pretending
power and Commission from him, shall invade this Kingdom, upon
pretext of establishing him in the exercise of Royal power, as it
will be an high provocation against God to be accessory or assisting
thereto, so will it be a necessary duty to resist and oppose the same.
. . . That as Magistrates and their power is ordained of God, so are
they
in the exercise thereof, not to walk according to their owne will, but
according to the Law of equity and righteousnesse, as being the
Ministers of GOD for the safety of his People; Therefore a boundless
and illimited power is to be acknowledged in no King nor Magistrate;
Neither is Our King to be admitted to the exercise of his power as
long as he refuses to walk in the Administration of the same
according to this rule, and the established Laws of the Kingdom, that his
Subjects may live under him a quiet and peaceable life in all
Godlinesse and honestie. . . . In the League and Covenant which
hath been so solemnly sworne and renewed by this Kingdom, the
Dutie of defending and preserving the Kings Person and Authority
is joyned with, and subordinat unto the dutie of preserving and
defending the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms: And therefore
his Majestie standing in opposition to the just and necessary
publick desires
concerning Religion and Liberties, it were a manifest Breach of
Covenant, and a preferring of the Kings interest to the interest of
Jesus Christ, to bring him to the exercise of his Royal power. . . .
54
9. Therefore, it is affirmed that the habitual tyrant who flagrantly
violates
the moral law of God is not Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, but rather Òthe
ordinance of GodÓ and Òthe minister of God to thee for goodÓ is he who
upholds GodÕs moral law.
10. Furthermore, it is the moral duty of all Christians to resist civil
governments which rule by tyranny and establish their thrones by
wickedness. The habitual tyranny of unlawful civil governments against
GodÕs moral law and against His Christ is manifested in their framing
Òmischief by lawÓ (Ps. 94:20). The following are just a few of the many
notorious and habitual violations of GodÕs moral law which are legally
protected by national constitutions and civil ordinances in nations
today.
a. Legal protection of idolatry and false worship within a nation that
has been enlightened by the gospel, together with a refusal to establish
the
true reformed religion as the only established religion within that
nation.
b. Refusal to affirm in constitutional documents that GodÕs moral law is
the supreme law of the land (within a nation enlightened by the gospel),
but to the contrary, the legal declaration of an immoral constitution to
be
the supreme law of the land.
c. Refusal to nationally acknowledge Jesus Christ as the supreme Ruler
of the nation whom all civil magistrates are obligated to ÒkissÓ (i.e. to
publicly honor) in their official functions (Ps. 2:12).
d. Legal protection of public blasphemy against the name of the Lord in
all forms of media.
e. Refusal to prohibit all unnecessary work on the LordÕs Day.
f. Tyranny exercised over families in prohibiting corporal discipline
and home education without government certification.
g. Legal endorsement of the slaughter and murder of unborn children.
h. Legal protection of gross immorality, sexual perversion and heinous
pornography.
i. Habitual theft through unjust and excessive taxes and through
inflated paper currency.
j. Habitual covenant breaking.
(1) All nations, territories, and dominions that have descended
from Great Britain are bound to uphold and to defend ÒThe Solemn League
and CovenantÓ (1643).55
(2) ÒThe Solemn League and CovenantÓ is a civil covenant (it is also
a personal covenant and an ecclesiastical covenant as well) which binds
all
those civil governments of nations that fall under it. The Westminster
Assembly considered Òall his Majesties dominionsÓ bound by ÒThe Solemn
League and CovenantÓ (which included at that period in history the
colonies in America and territories in Canada):
Those Winds which for a while do trouble the Aire, do withall purge
and refine it: And our trust is that through the most wise
Providence and blessing of God, the Truth by our so long continued
agitations, will be better cleared among us, and so our service will
prove more acceptable to all the Churches of Christ, but more
especially to you, while we have an intentive eye to our peculiar
Protestation, and to that publick Sacred Covenant [i.e. the Solemn
League and CovenantÑGLP] entered into by both the Kingdomes, for
Uniformity in all his Majesties Dominions. 56
(3) Even as the lawful covenant of a father binds all his children
presently living as well as those yet to be born (ÒHave we not all one
father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously
every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers
?Ó
Mal. 2:10, emphases added), likewise the lawful civil covenants of
national
parents bind their national progeny. If one is willing to grant that the
lawful covenant of a father can bind any of his descendants, he must be
willing to grant that the same lawful covenant binds all of his
descendants,
for the same moral obligation that rests upon any one descendant rests
upon all descendants.
(4) The United States and Canada as nations (and all other national
descendants of Great Britain) are children of Great Britain and are bound
by the lawful covenant of their national father solemnly sworn with
uplifted hands to the living God in 1643 and renewed on various occasions
in Scotland and the United States by Reformed Christians.
(5) The passing of time, changing of national laws, constitutions,
and boundaries cannot annul or alter the lawful covenants made with God,
for it is God Himself who is the other party to ÒThe Solemn League and
CovenantÓ ,and He has not changed nor excused covenanted nations from
their duties. This is confirmed by the Church of Scotland as it spoke
officially through its General Assembly:
Albeit the League and Covenant [i.e. ÒThe Solemn League and
CovenantÓÑGLP] be despised by that prevailing party in England, and
the Work of Uniformity, thorow [throughÑGLP] the retardements
and obstructions that have come in the way, be almost forgotten by
these Kingdoms, yet the obligation of that Covenant is perpetual, and
all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded, and
prosecute by every one of us and our posterity, according to their place
and stations. . . . 57
Although there were none in the one Kingdome who did adhere to
the Covenant, yet thereby were not the other Kingdom nor any
person in either of them absolved from the bond thereof, since in it
we have not only sworne by the Lord, but also covenanted with him.
It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve others from their
duty or tye to him; Besides, the duties therein contained, being in
themselves lawfull, and the grounds of our tye thereunto moral,
though others do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us
from that obligation which lyes upon us by the Covenant in our
places and stations. And the Covenant being intended and
entered into by these Kingdoms, as one of the best means of
stedfastnesse, for guarding against declining times; It were strange to
say that the back-sliding of any should absolve others from the tye
thereof, especially seeing our engagement therein is not only nationall,
but also personall, every one with uplifted hands swearing by
himself, as it is evident by the tennor of the Covenant.. 58
From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these
Kingdomes joyning together to abolish that oath by law, yet
could they not dispense therewith; Much lesse can any one of
them, or any part of them doe the same. The dispensing with oathes
hath hitherto been abhorred as Antichristian, and never
practiced and avowed by any, but by that man of sin [i.e. the
papacyÑGLP]; therefore those who take the same upon them, as they joyn
with him in his sin, so must they expect to partake of his plagues.
59
(6) ÒThe Solemn League and CovenantÓ was actually approved by
and in the process of being adopted by the Reformed Church of the
Netherlands as well as by other National Reformed Churches in Europe.
There was one great, even sublime idea, brought somewhat
indefinitely before the Westminster Assembly, which has not been
realized,Ñthe idea of a Protestant union throughout Christendom,
not merely for the purpose of counterbalancing Popery, but in order
to purify, strengthen, and unite all true Christian Churches, so that
with combined energy, and zeal they might go forth, in glad compliance
with the RedeemerÕs commands, teaching all nations, and preaching
the everlasting gospel to every creature under heaven. This truly
magnificent, and also truly Christian idea, seems to have
originated in the mind of that distinguised man, Alexander
Henderson. It was suggested by him to the Scottish commissioners, and
by them partially brought before the English Parliament, requesting
them to direct the Assembly to write letters to the Protestant
Churches in France, Holland, Switzerland, and other Reformed
Churches. . . . [A]long with these letters were sent copies of the
Solemn League and Covenant,Ña document which might itself form the
basis of such a Protestant union. The deep thinking divines of the
Netherlands apprehended the idea, and in their answer, not only
expressed their approbation of the Covenant, but also desired to
join in it with the British kingdoms. Nor did they content
themselves with the mere expression of approval and
willingness to join. A letter was soon afterwards sent to the
Assembly from the Hague, written by Duraeus (the celebrated John
Dury), offering to come to the Assembly, and containing a copy of a
vow which he had prepared and tendered to the distinguished
Oxenstiern, chancellor of Sweden, wherein he bound himself Òto
prosecute a reconciliation between Protestants in point of religionÓ.
. . . But the intrigues of politicians, the delays caused by the
conduct
of the Independents, and the narrow-minded Erastianism of the
English Parliament, all conspired to prevent the Assembly from entering
farther into that truly glorious Christian enterprise. Days of
trouble and darkness came; persecution wore out the great men of that
remarkable period; pure and vital Christianity was stricken to the
earth and trampled under foot. . . . 60
11. Lawful resistance (not revolutionary anarchy) against habitual
tyrants
is the duty of all Christians, for subjection for conscience sake is due
only
to him who is Òthe ordinance of GodÓ and Òthe minister of God to thee for
good.Ó Lawful resistance will most certainly involve the following
particular convictions and actions.
a. The habitual tyrant must be refused the honor which Òthe ordinance
of GodÓ alone is to be given.
b. The habitual tyrant must be refused subjection for conscience sake.
Though the Christian should obey all the lawful commands of even an
unlawful government (both because the command is agreeable to the Word
of God and because Christians ought to seek to maintain as much order as
possible in a nation until biblical changes can be made; for ÒlegalizedÓ
tyranny, i.e. tyranny that has the consent of the people, is ordinarily
better
than revolutionary anarchy), there can no more be conscientious
subjection
to a tyrantÕs authority as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ than to a murdererÕs
authority or to a thiefÕs authority as Ôthe ordinance of God.Ó
c. An immoral national constitution which protects and defends the
habitual and flagrant violation of GodÕs moral law (in both tables)
cannot
be upheld and defended by solemn oaths nor can allegiance in any way be
given to it. ÒThe Westminster Confession of FaithÓ makes it exceedingly
clear that to take an oath of allegiance to a constitution which protects
and
defends idolatry and immorality is an unlawful oath which a Christian
cannot take.
I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just
occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what
he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth
or falsehood of what he sweareth.
III. Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the
weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch [i.e. affirmÑ
GLP] nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither
may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good
and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able to
perform.
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the
words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It cannot
oblige to sin. . . . 61
A moral wrong can never be lawfully constituted as a civil right. That
which is contrary to GodÕs moral law (or legally protects that which is
contrary to GodÕs moral law) can never be sworn to in an oath. When a
national constitution protects idolatry and false worship rather than the
true reformed religion, it has itself become a monument of idolatry.
When
a national constitution within a land that has been enlightened by the
gospel omits any mention of the name of God or Christ, and defends the
ÒrightÓ of the atheist, the papist, the muslim, or the satanist to hold
office,
it is an anti-Christ document and cannot morally be the object of an oath
of
allegiance.
(1) ÒThe Larger CatechismÓ (1648) declares that the duties
required in the second commandment involve among others Òthe
disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to
each
oneÕs place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.Ó 62
It
is the place and calling of the civil magistrate to destroy all monuments
of
idolatry and false worship within the nation (especially immoral
constitutions and laws which grant Òcivil rightsÓ to idolaters,
blasphemers,
sabbath profaners, murderers, and sodomites). It is the place and
calling
of Christians in general to resist all complicity in oaths and allegiance
to
documents that promote and defend the Òcivil rightsÓ of idolaters, etc.
All
of the reformed creeds in their original form clearly maintained it was
the
duty of the civil magistrate in a nation enlightened by the gospel to
remove all monuments of idolatry and false religion (i.e. to uphold and
defend both tables of the lawÑin fact it was the Anabaptists, Socinians,
and
Quakers who opposed this universally held position of the Reformed
Churches in Britain and in Europe).
(2) Samuel Wylie, a Reformed Presbyterian minister of the
nineteenth century, has accurately sized up the glaring inconsistency
with
most reformed and presbyterian churches in this observation:
And I have never been able to satisfy myself, how it was consistent,
in those who profess Presbyterianism, to swear an oath [e.g. when
assuming a civil or military positionÑGLP], which involves the
supporting of idolatry, &c., while, at the same time, in their creeds
and church constitutions, they solemnly recognize their
obligation, in their respective stations, to remove every monument and
vestige of it from the land [as expounded in ÒThe Larger CatechismÓ, Q.
108ÑGLP]. 63
d. Since a Christian cannot take an oath of allegiance to an immoral
national constitution, two consequences must necessarily follow:
(1) A Christian cannot serve in any civil capacity that would
require him to give conscientious subjection to or to swear an oath of
allegiance to an immoral civil government or its national constitution.
However, this does not preclude Christians from seeking the reformation
of
an immoral civil government if conscientious subjection to it (as Òthe
ordinance of GodÓ) and an oath of allegiance are not required. In fact,
if
the Christian were not required to take an oath of allegiance to an
immoral
civil government, he would be free to cooperate with an immoral
government in bringing biblical reformation to that nation (and even in
assuming positions of authority and administration within that nation as
did Joseph, Daniel, Mordecai, and Nehemiah). John Cunningham, a
Reformed Presbyterian minister from Scotland, made the following
significant observation concerning the immoral British Constitution in
1843:
The friends of truth cannot justifiably persevere in supporting the
British Constitution as the ordinance of God. . . . The friends of
truth under the present government should say to it in such a
manner as not to be misunderstood,--We will obey your good laws,
because they are good; but by oaths or otherwise we will not
recognize your authority as of God.--We will co-operate with you in doing
what is good; but so long as you continue to support evil, we cannot
swear allegiance to you. Abolish all oaths of allegiance, and we will
act along with you in every right matter.--Were all those who hold the
truth in the united kingdom to do so, would not the request extort
regard? And might not rulers see the propriety of yielding? Were
such oaths to the present government abolished, then those who love
the truth might enter parliament, and act without being responsible for
the
evils of the civil constitution and of the administration, and at the
same time leadto essential political reformation; and the people could
with a clear conscience return to parliament such men as might be
possessed of proper character, and be of known attachment to
the truth. Were a door opened in this manner for men
consistently uttering their voice in the councils of the nation, then
means should be assiduously used, on the part of the people and on
the part of their representatives, for scripturally reforming the
State,
and for giving to true religion that external countenance and
support which is due it. 64
(2) The second consequence that must necessarily follow from a
ChristianÕs refusal to violate GodÕs moral law by taking an oath of
allegiance to an immoral national constitution is that he will not
consent to
(nor participate in) the sins of others by voting for and electing people
to
civil office who will be required to take an unlawful oath to an immoral
national constitution.
Those who, directly or indirectly, consent to the evil deeds of others
are partakers in their criminality. Ps. 50:18: ÒWhen thou
sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him,Ó which God severely
reprehends. If, therefore, the constitution be essentially at
war with the religion of Jesus, an homologation [i.e. an approval or
ratificationÑGLP] of it is striking hands with his enemies. No oath of
allegiance, therefore, can we swear, because we believe the constitution
[i.e. the national constitution of the United StatesÑGLP] to be
contrary
to the moral law, and our covenant engagements. Farther, we cannot
elect public functionaries to fill the various offices in the state;
for,
between the elector and the elected, there is a representative
oneness; so that every official act, done constitutionally by the
latter [i.e. the elected officialÑGLP], is virtually done by the former
[i.e.
the one who elected the officialÑGLP], through his representative
organ. He must, also, be introduced to office by an oath,
homologating [i.e. approving and ratifyingÑ GLP] the
constitution. Whatever, therefore, we cannot do ourselves, on account
of its immorality, we ought not to employ others to perform. 65
e. A Christian must resist all unlawful commands of the civil magistrate
(whether the one issuing the command is a lawful king or an unlawful
tyrant): ÒWe ought to obey God rather than menÓ Acts 5:29.
f. It is the duty of Christians both to testify against tyrannical civil
government and to affirm the moral duties of civil magistracy and
subjects
under GodÕs law. Civil reformation within a nation cannot occur without
a
faithful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For it is the truth
of
Jesus Christ that sets people free from sin, from ignorance, and from
tyranny. Thus, the position of civil government espoused and defended
herein strongly affirms that the primary resistance offered by Christians
against tyranny in civil government is by means of moral persuasion
accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit.
(1) Mark 13:9 (emphases added)
But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils;
and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought
before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
(2) Revelation 11:7 (emphases added)
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them,
and shall overcome them, and kill them.
(3) Matthew 28:19,20 (emphases added)
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. . . .
g. Christians should resist tyrannical civil governments by earnestly
praying that God would destroy the throne established by wickedness, that
He would be pleased to convert unlawful magistrates who presently are
His enemies, and that He would hasten the day when righteousness would
shine forth from the scepter of the civil magistrate.
(1) According to ÒThe Larger CatechismÓ it is the duty of Christians
in the first petition of the LordÕs Prayer to pray Òthat he [i.e.
GodÑGLP]
would prevent and remove atheism, ignorance, idolatry, profaneness, and
whatsoever is dishonorable to him. . . .Ó 66 Such a prayer must
necessarily involve removing all constitutional protection of such
blasphemous violations of GodÕs moral law in a nation that has been
enlightened by the gospel.
(2) Furthermore, ÒThe Larger CatechismÓ declares it is the duty of
Christians in the second petition of the LordÕs Prayer to pray Òthat the
kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyedÓ and that the gospel
ordinances may be Òpurged from corruption, countenanced and maintained
by the civil magistrate. . . .Ó 67 We are only to pray for that which is
agreeable to the revealed will of God. Thus, the Westminster divines (as
well as all Reformed Churches at that time) believed it to be in
conformity
to GodÕs revealed will to pray that thrones Òestablished by wickednessÓ
and
which framed Òmischief by a lawÓ be destroyed and that God would be
pleased to establish thrones by righteousness which countenance and
maintain the purity of the gospel ordinances against all atheism,
idolatry,
and false religion.
h. It is the duty of Christians to flee the unlawful authority of the
tyrant when his opposition to the faithful testimony of truth brings
persecution to the Christian. It is necessary to make clear that
Christians
are not to suffer for error or for wicked behavior. If a Christian must
suffer, it must be for the testimony of the truth in Jesus Christ alone.
(1) Matthew 5:10-12 (emphases added)
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnessÕ sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall
revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against
you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great
is
your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which
were before you.
(2) 1 Peter 3:14,17 (emphases added)
[I]f ye suffer for righteousnessÕ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid
of their terror, neither be troubled. . . . For it is better, if
the
will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
(3) 1 Peter 4:14-16 (emphases added)
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye. . . . But
let
none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or
as
a busybody in other menÕs matters. Yet if any man suffer as a
Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this
behalf.
When persecution for the sake of the truth becomes the providential lot
of
Christians, they must resist the tyrant by fleeing from his unlawful
authority and pretended jurisdiction. Fleeing the unlawful authority and
unjust sentences of a tyrant is not passive subjection; to the contrary,
it is
active resistance against tyranny. Samuel Rutherford (one of the
Scottish
delegates to the Westminster Assembly) states clearly the duty of
Christians in such circumstances:
Flying [i.e. fleeingÑGLP] from the tyranny of abused authority, is a
plain resisting of rulers in their unlawful oppression and
perverting of judgment. 68
As the king is under GodÕs law both in commanding and in exacting
active obedience, so is he under the same regulating law of God,
in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection, and as he
may not command what he will, but what the King of kings warranteth
him to command, so may he not punish as he will, but by warrant
also of the Supreme Judge of all the earth; and therefore it is not
dishonourable to the majesty of the ruler, that we deny passive
subjection
to him when he punisheth beside his warrant, more than it is
against his majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when
he commandeth illegally; else I see not how it is lawful to fly [i.e.
fleeÑGLP] from a tyrannous king, as Elias [i.e. ElijahÑGLP], Christ,
and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done; and, therefore,
what royalists say here is a great untruth, namely, that in things lawful
we must be subject actively,--in things unlawful, passively. For as
we are in things lawful to be subject actively, so there is no duty in
point of conscience, laying on us to be subject passively, because I
may lawfully fly [i.e. fleeÑ GLP], and so lawfully deny passive
subjection to the kingÕs will, punishing unjustly. 69
i. As a last resort against tyrannical civil government which embarks
upon a reign of terror against its own people, Christians may use force
in
self-defence to subdue the violent rage of the civil magistrate. It has
been
previously demonstrated both from Scripture (cf. pp. 19,20) and from
history (cf. pp. 20-26) that tyrants may be subdued by force. The
intensity with which such resistance should be maintained against a
tyrant
is appropriately stated by Junius Brutus:
If their [i.e. the civil magistrateÕsÑGLP] assaults be verbal, their
defence must be likewise verbal; if the sword be drawn against
them, they may also take arms, and fight either with tongue or hand,
as occasion is. . . .70
j. It is affirmed by our reformed forefathers that resistance by means
of force in cases of self-defence is not contrary to biblical commands
which
call Christians to be subject to lawful magistrates (and not to resist
them),
or biblical commands which call Christians to suffer patiently under
harsh
rulers. Samuel Rutherford has faithfully expounded such biblical
passages
(as those found in Romans 13:1,2 and 1 Peter 2:13-20), and clearly
demonstrates that these passages cannot be made to contradict the rest of
GodÕs Word (where resistance by means of force in self-defence is
approved), and that these texts themselves do not contradict biblical
resistance (whether resistance without force or resistance by means of
force). Rutherford reasons:
(1) Patient suffering under wicked men and resisting them by
means of force are not incompatible, but may very well stand together.
One act of grace and virtue is not contrary to another; resistance is
in
the children of God an innocent act of self-preservation, as is patient
suffering, and therefore they may well subsist in one. . . . The
scope of the place (1 Pet. ii.) is not to forbid all violent
resisting, as is clear he speaketh nothing of violent resisting either
one way or other, but only he forbiddeth revengeful resisting of
repaying one wrong with another, from the example of Christ, who,
Òwhen he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he
threatened not;Ó therefore, the argument is a falacy. . . therefore,
the
servant who should violently resist his master in the aforesaid case
[i.e. when his master should seek to kill himÑGLP] should, and might
patiently suffer and violently resist. . . . 71
(2) Suffering while under wicked tyranny and yet offering a
passive non-resistance is nowhere found to be the moral duty of a
Christian, except under two extraordinary conditions: 1. The passive
obedience of Christ in which He was commanded to lay down His life for
His people, and thus could not resist tyranny; 2. The positive command
of
God not to resist while suffering as in the extraordinary cases of Christ
and
the Israelites under Nebuchadnezzar (where the Israelites are commanded
to serve the king of Babylon for seventy years as just recompense for
their
flagrant sin against God, Jer. 27:12) .
All these places of GodÕs word, that recommendeth suffering to the
followers of Christ, do not command formally that we suffer;
therefore, suffering falleth not formally under any commandment of
God. . . . they prove only that comparatively we are to
choose rather to suffer than to deny Christ before men . . . . and
therefore neither Rom. xiii., nor 1 Pet. ii., nor any other place in
GodÕs word, any common divine, natural, national or any municipal law,
commandeth formally obedience passive, or subjection
passive, or non-resistance under the notion of passive obedience. . . .
72
(3) The passage in 1 Peter 2:18 calls a Christian servant not to
retaliate against his master by doing to the master as the master has
done
to him, and in so doing the Christian is to suffer after the example of
his
Lord who when he was reviled, did not revile in return. However, the
passage does not imply that resistance by means of force is unlawful in
cases of self-defence.
(4) When resistance (by means of force) is necessary in self-
defence against the violence of an unlawful civil magistrate, it is not
the
lawful office or the lawful power of the civil magistrate that is being
resisted (Rutherford refers to the lawful office of the magistrate as
Òthe
king in abstracto Ó), rather it is the abuse of office or the tyranny in
the
man who is in office that is resisted (Rutherford refers to this abuse of
power as Òthe king in concretoÓ). Thus, Rutherford explains:
We must needs be subject to the royal office for conscience, by
reason of the fifth commandment; but we must not needs be subject to
the man who is king, if he command things unlawful. . . but Paul
(Rom. xiii.) forbiddeth us to resist the power, in abstract;
therefore, it must be the man, in concreto, that we must resist.73
k. It can be easily demonstrated from the various struggles of reformed
Christians in resisting tyrannical rulers that they did not understand
Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 (or Titus 3:1) either to refer to a tyrant as
Òthe
ordinance of GodÓ to whom Christians must subject themselves for
conscience sake, nor to forbid active resistance for conscience sake
against
a tyrant who happens to call himself a civil magistrate.
(1) The German princes of the Reformed Church levied war against
a tyrannical emperor and concluded after mature deliberation:
Unjust violence is not GodÕs ordinance; neither are we bound to him
by any other reason than if he kept the conditions on which he was
created emperor. By the laws themselves it is provided that the
superior magistrate shall not infringe the right of the inferior, and
if the superior magistrate exceed the limits of his power, and
command that which is wicked, not only [doÑGLP] we need not obey him,
but, if he offer force, we may resist him. 74
(2) The Reformed Church in France many times resisted the
tyranny of kings as in the following example:
So in the reign of Charles IX., when all acts of pacification were
broken, after many fruitless petitions, and vain promises, they take
up arms, whereupon a bloody civil war ensued; and when this
king, contrary to his oath, 1572, caused that massacre at Paris,
the Protestants in Languedoc, Rochelle, and other parts, took up
arms in their own defence. 75
(3) The Reformed Church of Geneva (under the leadership of
Calvin, Beza, Viret, etc.) was actively involved in supporting (by means
of
finances, ministers, soldiers, arms, ammunition, and sanctuary) the
resistance of the Huguenots against the popish tyrants who reigned in
France.
These leaders of the French nobility were soon joined in Orleans [in
March 1562Ñ GLP] by leaders of the French Protestant ministry, most
prominent among them Beza. . . . These ecclesiastical leaders
constituted a war party around Conde. They were opposed to any
negotiations or military maneuvers that, in the interest of strategy
or a peaceful settlement, would sacrifice Protestant congregations or
their
legal right to worship. Beza, as noted, had opposed the abandonment
of Paris in March, and he later proposed an armed seizure of Paris.
76
Calvin, himself, did not stop at indirect pressure in fund raising for
the war. In a general letter to the churches of Languedoc, he
appealed specifically for money to pay for the German mercenaries
whom dÕAndelot was at the moment trying to recruit in Germany.
. . . By no means pacifist, he accepted and supported religious war in
exceedingly realistic ways.77
[T]he most important Genevan man-power contribution to the
Huguenot cause was the organization of a cavalry escort under local
officership to accompany a large troop of Swiss and Bernese
soldiers which the Bernese government finally decided to organize,
part of the way into France in July, 1562. The escort was organized at
CalvinÕs suggestion in response to rather firm hints from Berne and
certain local people that the Genevans should contribute something
to the Swiss armies marching Òto the Service of the Church of
LyonsÓ. . . . It is clear that Geneva contributed in material ways to
the Huguenot armies in France. Though the appearance of
neutrality was maintained, the government allowed and at times
encouraged the sending of small groups of men, large sums of money,
and substantial quantities of gunpowder to the forces fighting
for the Calvinist faith. And the spiritual leaders of the city were
involved in more or less positive ways in these activities. Geneva
became a veritable arsenal of Calvinism.78
The ecclesiastical and political influence of Geneva continued strong
for decades. In the years preceding the Thirty Years War[,] groups of
Calvinist noblemen from Holland, Germany, Bohemia, and other
nations, planned co-ordinated political action. The strength of
Calvinism, wherever the doctrine was oppressed, seemed to find
outlet in breeding social change to the actual point of social
revolution.
And the organizing center for many of these revolutions was
unquestionably Geneva. . . . It was the prime source of
ecclesiastical leaders and the outpouring of printed propaganda; it
was a staging-base for conspiracies, a negotiating point for loans, and
a producer and distributor of armament. 79
(4) The Reformed Church of the Netherlands united with the prince
of Orange in 1572 and entered into a solemn covenant to defend religion,
lives, and liberties by force of arms against the tyrannical rule of the
Romish Spaniards. In a solemn protestation they declared the reasons for
their resistance:
For zeal to the country, for the glory of God, because of the
inhumanities and oppressions, and more than barbarous and
insupportable tyranny and encroachments upon their
privileges, liberties, and freedom. 80
(5) The Waldenses in Piedmont, (in 1558, 1561) having undergone
much persecution from popish magistrates,
assembled together to consult how they might prevent danger; and,
after long prayer and calling upon God, they concluded to enter into
a solemn mutual covenant for defence of themselves and their
religion, and did so with success, obtaining many notable victories
against their persecutors. . . . 81
(5) The Church of Scotland resisted Charles I and counseled
Parliament not to allow him back upon the throne nor allow him to
exercise his royal power until he gave them the assurances they demanded
of him (namely subscribing the Solemn League and Covenant):
That before his Majesties restitution to the exercise of his Royall
power assurance be had from his Majesty by his solemn Oath under
his hand and seal for settling Religion according to the Covenant
[i.e. the Solemn League and CovenantÑ GLP]. 82
12. In conclusion, it is affirmed that God requires of the Christian
subjection for conscience sake to the office of civil magistracy and to
those
who hold the office so long as they fulfil the moral duties of a civil
magistrate. This and this alone is Òthe ordinance of God.Ó However, it
is
denied that the Christian owes conscientious subjection or honor to a
tyrant who forsakes the moral duties of his office. The Christian should
be
thankful for the measure of freedom he may yet enjoy under a tyrant, but
he cannot say that the emperor is clothed in lawful authority just
because
everyone says he is. The Christian must fear the Lord his God, and stand
with the cloud of faithful witnesses and courageously declare, ÒThe king
has no clothesÓ (i.e. no lawful authority). The Christian who testifies
to this
truth may be falsely accused of treason, sedition, and revolutionary
anarchy, but so were Christ, Paul, and Christians throughout history. If
it
can justly be termed ÒtreasonÓ to actively resist tyranny, then far
better to
be charged with treason against a tyrant than to be charged with treason
against the Son of God for not actively resisting ChristÕs enemies when
it is
the ChristianÕs duty to do so. The eminent Scottish divine, Samuel
Rutherford, well stated the duty of the Christian who stands for the
truth
in the face of false allegations of treason:
Christ, the prophets, and apostles of our Lord, went to heaven with
the note of traitors, seditious men, and such as turned the world
upside down: calumnies [i.e. slandersÑGLP] of treason to Caesar were
an ingredient in ChristÕs cup, and therefore the author [i.e. Mr.
RutherfordÑGLP] is the more willing to drink of that cup that touched
his lip, who is our glorious Forerunner: what, if conscience
toward God, and credit with men, cannot both go to heaven with the
saints, the author is satisfied with the former companion, and is
willing to dismiss the other. Truth to Christ cannot be treason to
Caesar. . . . 83
There is coming a day when magistracy and ministry will both fulfil their
ordained duties to the glory of Christ, then the church of Jesus Christ
will
see the full realization of GodÕs promise: ÒThus saith the Lord God,
Behold,
I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the
people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters
shall
be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers,
and their queens thy nursing mothersÓ (Is. 49:22,23).
Appendix A
Objections
Several objections to the position of civil magistracy affirmed and
defended in this book will be briefly considered.
with the cloud of faithful witnesses and courageously declare
1. What about biblical characters who served in civil governments or in
the military in which biblical religion was not the established religion
of
the state?
Answer: Whether it is Joseph, Daniel, Mordecai, Nehemiah, or Cornelius
the
centurion, we may conclude, either first, that the civil power was
lawful; or
second, that offices may be held under unlawful civil governments; or
third, that they sinned in accepting those civil offices. The second
response
is affirmed to be true while the other two responses are denied to be
true.
Neither directly nor indirectly were they required to consent to the
idolatries of those nations or to sanction any acts of oppression. Nor
does
the Scripture indicate that they were required to take an oath of
allegiance
to an immoral constitution or swear allegiance to an immoral magistrate.
Any office may be held, or service engaged in, upon the three
following conditions:
1st. That the duties belonging to it be right in themselves.
2d. That they be regulated by a just law.
3d. That there be no other oath of office required, but faithfully to
execute official duties.
Let these be the stipulations, and an office may be held under any
power, howsoever immorally constituted, without an
homologation [i.e. approving] of its immorality. . . . If it be
pleaded
that the monarchÕs will was the constitution, this, even if admitted,
makes no difference. The office was either such as required
allegiance to this constitution, or it did not. If the latter, it is
the thing
contended for, viz. that there was no immoral obligation
connected with this office. If the former, he was perjured, not only
by breaking it in several instances, but in taking it also, for he
swore
to a blank , i.e. to perform he knew not what. But there is no account
of DanielÕs coming under any such obligation.84
2. Does not Christ confirm the lawful authority of the beast of Rome when
He says, ÒRender therefore unto Caesar the things which are CaesarÕs; and
unto God the things that are GodÕsÓ (Mt. 22:21)?
Answer: This question was proposed by the enemies of Christ (the
Pharisees and the Herodians) in order to Òentangle himÓ (Mt. 22:15). If
Christ were to answer, ÒRender the tribute to CaesarÓ, the Pharisees (who
strongly opposed Roman complicity) would have slandered Christ as a
Roman sympathizer. However, if Christ were to answer, ÒRender not the
tribute to CaesarÓ, the Herodians (who strongly supported Roman
alliances)
would have slandered him as being an avowed enemy to Caesar. But the
Lord Jesus Òperceived their wickednessÓ and essentially gave them a non-
answer to their question. Since it was not an honest question, Christ
did
not play into their trap by answering their question. In fact, Òthey
could
not take hold of his words before the peopleÓ (Lk. 20:26). Even they
could
not clearly understand what He had said about the issue of paying tribute
to Caesar. Thus, if the enemies of Christ couldnÕt pin Him to an answer
one
way or the other (though they would have loved to), neither can any one
living today conclude whether Christ condemned paying tribute to Caesar
or commended it from His answer. Such evasion to entrapment was used
by Christ on other occasions as well (cf. Mk. 11:27-33; Jn. 8:1-11).
Even if
Christ did endorse the paying of tribute to Caesar, that is not an oath
of
allegiance paid to Caesar, nor a declaration concerning the lawfulness of
CaesarÕs authority. For tribute exacted by an unlawful government is
simply extortion required by a thief who threatens to take all your
property if you donÕt pay him part of your property. Furthermore, even
foreigners and aliens pay taxes to nations in which they work without
declaring any allegiance to the civil government of that nation. Thus,
the
payment of taxes is not an oath of allegiance.
3. Did not PaulÕs appeal to Caesar acknowledge the lawfulness of CaesarÕs
courts (Acts 25:11)?
Answer: PaulÕs appeal to Caesar is no declaration on PaulÕs part that he
recognized the lawfulness of CaesarÕs court. Because the Lord had
revealed
to him that he would give testimony of Christ in Rome, and because Paul
knew the Jews had plotted to murder him if he returned to Jerusalem as
planned, he prudently appealed to Caesar as a means of self-defence as
well as a means of taking the truth to Rome. In fact, it might be argued
that Paul in another text describes the Roman magistrates in their courts
as being unjust (1 Cor. 6:1-8). The following summary from Plain Reasons
For Presbyterians Dissenting From The Revolution Church In Scotland will
suffice:
As, (1.) He was brought before the Seat of Judicature, he did not
voluntarily come to them, Acts 23:23; (2.) He being threatened to be
murdered by his Country Men, who lay in wait by the Way for him,
Acts 23. 14. Chap. 25. 11. as though one should appeal to a Thief,
to save his life from the Murderer. (3.) His Appeal to Caesar might
be, to get an Opportunity to testify of Christ, and to preach the
Gospel at Rome, as the Lord had declared to him he should, Chap. 23. 11,
and as he accordingly did. 85
4. Is not Cyrus designated as GodÕs ÒanointedÓ and GodÕs ÒshepherdÓ (Is.
44:28; Is. 45:1)?
Answer: These terms may indicate that Cyrus was a lawful magistrate
under the light of moral law which he had been granted. He uses the
knowledge of God and civil authority which he has been given in order to:
(1) release GodÕs people from captivity; (2) charge GodÕs people with the
task of rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem; (3) provide all the materials
needed for the job. He may be an historical fulfillment of the prophecy
made by Isaiah (49:23) that Gentile rulers would become nursing fathers
to GodÕs people. However, there are times in which God anoints rulers
not
because they are lawful magistrates, but as a means of setting them apart
to be Òthe rod of his angerÓ against individuals or nations. For
example,
heathen nations like the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians are called GodÕs
Òsanctified onesÓ (Is. 13:3) because they were to be used by God to pour
forth His righteous anger on rebellious Israel and Judah. Furthermore,
God
commands Elijah to anoint Hazael king of Syria (1 Kgs. 19:15) not because
Hazael was a righteous king, but because Hazael was commissioned by
GodÕs providential will to judge Israel (Òtheir strongholds wilt thou set
on
fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash
their children, and rip up their women with childÓ 2 Kgs. 8:12).
5. If the Israelites were specifically commanded by God not to resist the
military conquest of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27:12), how can it be the duty
of
Christians to resist the tyranny of rulers today?
Answer: First, this is a positive command of the Lord which is unique to
the circumstances of Israel at that period of history. A universal,
moral
principle of non-resistance against tyrants cannot be drawn from this
text
without attributing to God contradictory moral principles. For God
clearly
approves of and even commands resistance against tyrants in many cases:
(1) Abraham resisted the wicked alliance of kings who had
conquered Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not acknowledge them to be Òthe
minister of GodÓ merely because they had gained a military power to rule
(in GodÕs providence), but rather Abraham defeated them and rescued Lot
from their clutches (Gen. 14:13-16).
(2) Moses did not recognize Pharoah as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, but
resisted his tyranny and delivered Israel from servitude in Egypt (Ex. 7-
14).
(3) Judges such as Othniel (Judg. 3:8-11), Ehud (Judg. 12-30),
Shamgar (Judg. 3:31), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4), Gideon (Judg. 6-8),
Jephthah (Judg.11-12), and Samson (Judg. 13-16) resisted tyrants who
ruled over Israel rather than granting to them subjection for conscience
sake.
(4) David did not honor Absalom as a Òhigher powerÓ whom he was
obligated to honor as Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, but resisted him even
though
Absalom had won the hearts of all the people of Israel and had gained
military control of Israel (2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam. 18:6-8).
(5) Elijah did not honor Ahab as Òthe minister of GodÓ for good, but
resisted him by fleeing from him and his wicked queen (1 Kgs. 17:3;
1 Kgs. 19:3), and by taking the sword from the hands of Ahab so that he
and the people slew the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18:40).
(6) Elijah did not acknowledge the lawful authority of king Ahaziah
to rule over Israel, for he resisted the king by not obeying the kingÕs
order
to compear before him and even brought GodÕs fiery judgment upon the
representatives of AhaziahÕs authority (2 Kgs. 1:9-13).
(7) Jehoiada did not subject himself for conscience sake to the
tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death even though she accused all those
who resisted her of treason (2 Chron. 23:12-15).
(8) God Himself resisted the idolatrous kings of Israel by not
acknowledging them to be ministers whom He appointed (Hos. 8:4).
(9) Jesus instructed His disciples that when they were delivered up
to gentile kings for ChristÕs sake, rather than acknowledging them to be
Òthe ordinance of GodÓ, they were to testify against them (Mt. 10:18),
and
to flee their tyranny rather than submit to them for conscience sake (Mt.
10:23).
(10) God gives wings to the church to flee from the persecution
which Satan brings against her by means of tyrannical civil and
ecclesiastical government rather than commanding the church to render
conscientious subjection to such tyranny (Rev. 12:14).
(11) ÒThe prince of this worldÓ (Jn. 14:30) is to be resisted by
Christians (Jms. 4:7). If Satan (who grants power to wicked tyrants to
rule)
is to be resisted, should not tyrants who rule by SatanÕs wicked power
also
be
resisted?
Thus, it is evident that the command from God to the Israelites (ÒBring
your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his
people, and liveÓ Jer. 27:12) is an extraordinary exception to what God
in
the above mentioned passages approves. Second, this Babylonian king was
sent as GodÕs scourge and sword (and in that sense he was GodÕs servant,
Jer. 27:6; 25:29; Is. 10:5) upon Judah for their flagrant backsliding and
sinning against GodÕs covenant. The length of their subjection to the
king
of Babylon is even specified by God: ÒAnd this whole land shall be a
desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king
of
Babylon seventy yearsÓ (Jer. 25:11). However, later in the prophecy of
Jeremiah, the Lord condemns Nebuchadnezzar for his role in scattering and
breaking the bones of His people, and He promises to punish the king of
Babylon even as He punished the king of Assyria (Jer. 50:16,17). Third,
even though Judah is commanded to serve the king of Babylon, there is
nothing necessarily indicated in the word ÒserveÓ that would require a
subjection for conscience sake (or honoring him as the lawful ordinance
of
God) on the part of GodÕs people. As Christopher Goodman states: ÒThey
were made subjects to the king of Babylon to serve him with their bodies
and goodsÓ86 (not with their consciences). The service of Judah to the
king
of Babylon has the same kind of bodily service in view as the service of
Israel to the Pharaoh of Egypt. Neither the service to the Pharaoh of
Egypt
nor the service to the king of Babylon require an owning of the tyrant as
Òthe minister of God to thee for good.Ó
6. The Westminster Confession of Faith (23:4) states, Òthat infidelity,
or
difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrateÕs just and
legal
authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.Ó IsnÕt
this
contrary to the position affirmed in this book?
Answer: No, it is not. Some of the men quoted throughout this book (e.g.
George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford) were Scottish delegates to the
Westminster Assembly, and knew very well the position endorsed
concerning the civil magistrate in the Confession of Faith. RutherfordÕs
classic treatment of civil magistracy, Lex, Rex agrees with the
ConfessionÕs
position concerning the civil magistrate. The following explanation
summarizes well the meaning and intent of the Westminster divines.
They distinguished between reformed and enlightened lands, and
those that were unreformed and unenlightened. In the latter [i.e. in
unreformed and unenlightened landsÑGLP], many things may be
borne with, which ought not to be suffered in the former [i.e. in
reformed and enlightened landsÑGLP]; particularly, when by a
solemn national act, they have made scriptural qualifications essential
to the civil constitution. This our ancestors did in their Covenants
National and Solemn League. All ranks and conditions in the
realm solemnly swore to use every lawful endeavour to extirpate [i.e.
uprootÑGLP] popery, prelacy, &c. . . . Let the authority of the
magistrate be just and legal, we will then hold ourselves
conscientiously bound to yield obedience. No authority can be just and
legal, with which a contradiction to the moral law is essentially
incorporated. Simple infidelity will not render it unjust, either in
a heathen country, or in one emerging from Pagan darkness. Neither
will simple difference in religion make it void, when the nation
have not, by their own solemn act and deed, made conformity [of the
religion of the magistrateÑGLP] an essential article of their
constitution.
There may be many defects in a civil constitution, and yet [itÑ
GLP] is morally binding upon a nation: but where plain immorality,
or a solemn obligation to support what the Legislator of the
universe prohibits under the severest penalties, is essentially
incorporated therewith, it cannot bind the conscience.87
7. Did not Christ Himself forbid his disciples from using violent
resistance
against magistrates when He was taken into custody by them in the
Garden of Gethsemane (Mt. 26:52; Jn. 18:11)?
Answer: First of all, the Lord Jesus prohibited Peter from using violent
resistance in the Garden of Gethsemane because He was appointed as the
Lamb of God to voluntarily lay down His life for His people (ÒPut up thy
sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not
drink it?Ó Jn. 18:12). He was no ordinary person in an ordinary
situation of
tyranny. Christ was uniquely suffering for His people. Peter could not
stand in the way (as he tried to do earlier in Mt. 16:22,23). Just as
Christ
could not resist the unjust suffering He bore upon the cross, so He could
not resist the unjust arrest he endured in the Garden. The LordÕs
remarks
to Peter certainly indicate that He could have been rescued from this
unjust arrest by more than twelve legions of angels had He desired them.
Furthermore, it is evident that Christ was willingly enduring this unjust
arrest on behalf of His people (and therefore this was an extraordinary
kind of suffering) . For what He commanded of His disciples in such a
situation (namely, that they flee, Mt. 10:23), He Himself would not use
(though He knew what was coming and could have fled, Jn. 18:4). Second,
Jesus commands Peter to put away his sword. Why? If Peter were
foolishly to take up his sword against the multitudes of armed soldiers
in
the garden (Mt. 26:47), he would indeed perish by the sword (right on the
spot). Jesus is not giving Christians a universal, moral principle that
they
must never take up arms to defend themselves or to resist a tyrant, but
rather He is calling to the attention of Peter and all the disciples that
if
they take up the sword in that particular situation, they will all perish
by
the sword. For otherwise, Jesus would be contradicting what the rest of
Scripture teaches concerning GodÕs approval of resisting tyranny by means
of force in appropriate circumstances. Thirdly, it is not ChristÕs
passive
resistance in suffering that Christians are to emulate (for ÒThe Larger
CatechismÓ actually declares that the duties required in the sixth
commandment are Òall careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve
the life of ourselves and others. . . by just defence thereof against
violenceÓ88), but rather it is the LordÕs refusal to seek personal
revenge or
verbal retaliation against His persecutors that Christians are bound to
follow:
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us,
leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled,
reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but
committed himself to him that judgeth righteously (1 Pet. 2:21- 23).
8. Briefly summarize your position in light of Romans 13:1-7.
Answer: The following is an introduction by George Buchanan to his
discussion of Romans 13, and is consistent with the biblical position
maintained by the reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Paul, therefore, does not here treat of the magistrate, but of the
magistracyÑthat is, of the function and duty of the person who
presides over others, nor of this nor of that species of magistracy,
but
of every possible form of government. Nor does he contend against
those who maintained that bad magistrates ought to be punished,
but against persons who renounced every kind of authority; who, by an
absurd interpretation of Christian liberty, affirmed that it was an
indignity to men emancipated by the Son of God, and directed
by GodÕs Spirit, to be controlled by any human power. To refute this
erroneous opinion, Paul shows that magistracy is not only a good, but
a sacred and divine ordinance. . . . 89
(v. 1) Conscientious and active subjection to lawful civil government is
required of every person, for all lawful governments find their origin in
God as Creator, and have their institution from God and His moral law.
(v. 2) Therefore, since lawful civil government is GodÕs institution,
whoever resists it and refuses to submit to it , fights against God and
His
institution. All those who resist GodÕs ordinance of lawful civil
magistracy
will receive judgment from God.
(v. 3) Lawful civil magistracy is characterized by terrorizing the wicked
and immoral, not the righteous and godly.
(v. 4) Furthermore, lawful civil magistracy is GodÕs servant in bringing
the blessings of GodÕs good law to Christians. It is also GodÕs servant
in
bringing GodÕs holy wrath upon those who flagrantly violate His moral
law.
(v. 5) Because lawful civil magistracy is Òthe ordinance of GodÕ, Òthe
minister of God to thee for goodÓ, and Òthe minister of God. . . to
avenge
wrath upon him that doeth evilÓ, it is necessary to be subject not simply
because of the sword which he bears, but especially because it is a moral
duty before God to do so.
(v. 6) Thus, the lawful civil magistrate should receive compensation as
GodÕs minister of justice.
(v. 7) Not only should the lawful civil magistrate receive financial
compensation, but also he should receive both reverence and honor from
his subjects.90
In the mind of many Reformed theologians Romans 13 (and other passages
like it) is so far from enjoining obedience to unlawful civil magistrates
that,
in fact, David Steele comments that the mark of the beast (Rev.13:16-17)
actually refers to those who show open and avowed allegiance to and
cooperate with antichristian or immoral civil powers. Steele writes,
But it will be asked, ÒWhat are we to understand by the Ômark?ÕÓ This
question is easily answered from history. The heathen idolater gloried
in
his devotion to his imaginary god; as the ivy leaf was the token of the
worshippers of Bacchus: soldiers bore the initials of the names of their
commanders; and slaves, of their masters. These characters were
impressed on the foreheads or other part of the persons of individuals.
The general idea suggested by the ÒmarkÓ was subjection or property. In
short, the mark of the beast signifies open and avowed allegiance to
Antichristian or immoral civil power, when in the Òforehead;Ó and active
co-operation with the same, when in the Òhand.Ó
It is at once a pitiable and culpable error, to suppose, as many
preposterously do, that this Òmark of the beastÓ is Popery! And as the
ÒmarkÓ is the recognized badge of loyalty to civil rule, of course, the
prohibition to Òbuy or sell,Ó must signify civil disabilities Ñ
disenfranchisement. Men who suffer, necessarily feel. ChristÕs
witnesses,
as they only have the scriptural conception of the rights of man, have
long
been familiar with the deprivation of their rights, both civil and
ecclesiastical. The moral evils incorporated in the constitutions of
church
and state, throughout all the streets of mystic Babylon, have effectually
excluded the two witness, and left them in the Òwilderness.Ó Here is
their
destined Òplace,Ó and here they are to be Ònourished from the face of the
serpentÓ for 1260 years. ChristÕs promise Ñ ÒI will not leave you
comfortlessÓ (orphans) Ñ is all along verified in their soul-satisfying
experience.91
9. If we did not personally subscribe the covenants of our ancestors
(e.g.
the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant), how can they
obligate us to obedience?
Answer: First, only the lawful covenants of ancestors can bind their
descendants (i.e. covenants that bind us to perform the moral law of God
or
duties that flow from the Ten Commandments). Unlawful covenants
(covenants contrary to GodÕs Word) of ancestors have no obligating tie
upon descendants (e.g. if we bound our descendants to worship God by
means of images, they would not be bound because such a covenant is
contrary to the Second Commandment). Thus, if the content of the
covenant is of moral obligation (if it is biblical), then a descendant is
bound
by the authority of God to perform it. Second, the people of God
throughout history in their social or corporate capacity are viewed by
God
as one moral person (rather than as hundreds of thousands of
individuals).
That is, God does not have two or more peoples, two or more brides, two
or
more churches in history. There is one church, one bride, and one people
of God with different administrations under the Old Covenant and the New
Covenant (e.g. there is one olive tree with different branches in Rom.
11:13-24; one person at different stages of development in Gal. 4:1-7;
and
one commonwealth of Israel with citizens from different nationalities in
Eph. 2:11-22). Those moral obligations of the law that bind the people
of
God at one point in history, bind the people of God in all subsequent
points
in history. Since one of the moral obligations placed upon GodÕs people
is
social covenanting,92 all lawful covenants sworn by our ancestors do
morally bind us for we are one person with them (even if they were in a
different nation, even if every person on earth has abjured or renounced
that covenant, even if civil magistrates or church officers say we are
not
bound by that covenant). Are we bound by the covenants of GodÕs people
(as to the moral duty) in Deut. 5:3; 2 Chron. 34:30,31 etc.? Why?
Because
we are one moral person with them. Listen to the words of the General
Assembly of Scotland to this effect.
Albeit the League and Covenant be despised by that prevailing party
in England , and the Work of Uniformity, thorow [throughÑGLP] the
retardements and obstructions that have come in the way, be
almost forgotten by these Kingdoms, yet the obligation of that
Covenant is perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are
constantly to be minded, and prosecute by every one of us and
our posterity, according to their place and stations: And therefore we
are no lesse zealously to endeavour, that his Majestie may Establish,
and swear, and subscribe the same, then if it were unanimously
regarded and stuck unto by all the Kingdom of England , for his
Majestie swearing and subscribing the League and Covenant, will
much contribute for the Security of Religion, his Majesties happinesse,
and the Peace of his Kingdoms.93
Although there were none in the one Kingdome who did adhere to
the Covenant, [i.e. the Solemn League and CovenantÑGLP] yet
thereby were not the other Kingdom nor any person in either of
them absolved from the bond thereof, since in it we have not only
sworne by the Lord, but also covenanted with him. It is not the
failing of one or more that can absolve others from their duty or tye to
him; Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves
lawfull,
and the grounds of our tye thereunto moral, though others do
forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that
obligation which lyes upon us by the Covenant in our places
and stations. And the Covenant being intended and entered into
by these Kingdoms, as one of the best means of stedfastnesse, for
guarding against declining times; It were strange to say that the back-
sliding of any should absolve others from the tye thereof, especially
seeing our engagement therein is not only nationall, but also
personall, every one with uplifted hands swearing by himself, as
it is evident by the tennor of the Covenant. 94
From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these
Kingdomes joyning together to abolish that oath by law, yet could
they not dispense therewith; Much lesse can any one of them, or any
part of them doe the same. The dispensing with oathes hath hitherto
been abhorred as Antichristian, and never practiced and
avowed by any, but by that man of sin; therefore those who take the
same upon them, as they joyn with him in his sin, so must they expect
to partake of his plagues. 95
10. Your view seems to imply that all present civil governments (where
the light of the gospel has shone forth) are presently unlawful. Is this
correct?
Answer: Yes, it is correct. The eschatology of the Protestant
Reformation,
known as historicism, places us in the time of the great apostasy, in
which
the nations of the Earth (for the most part) will be Òwondering after the
beast.Ó No nation is presently covenanted to Christ (as a nation) or
seeking
to obey His law as the supreme law of the land. In light of this,
regarding
those nations which have had knowledge of the gospel of Christ, the
Reformed Presbytery notes,
The nations throughout Christendom, continue in league with Antichrist
and give their strength to the beast. They still refuse to profess and
defend
the true religion in doctrine, worship, government and discipline,
contrary
to the example of the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland in the
seventeenth century. Some of them have waged wars of conquest, under
pretence of opening a way for the spread of the gospel; and disregarding
international law, have violated solemn treaties among themselves, and
all
of them practically disregard divine authority; habitually profaning the
Christian Sabbath, by carrying mail, by commercial traffic, and parties
of
pleasure on land and water.
Acknowledging the righteousness of divine judgement upon ourselves and
others for manifold violations of GodÕs law and breaches of our own and
our fathersÕ solemn vows in our domestic, ecclesiastical, and civil
relations;
we desire to humble ourselves before God for these sins, and for others
not
contained in this enumeration. Seeing that God hath punished us less than
our iniquities deserve, and hath left us a small remnant in his sovereign
mercy, our prayer to him is that he may enable us by his grace to bring
forth fruits meet for repentance, to the glory of his great and holy
name,
and the commendation of his pardoning mercy.96
11. Do any of the writings of the church fathers indicate that they
were
moving in the direction of the later (or more mature) thought, concerning
civil magistracy, that developed and peaked at the height of the second
Reformation?
Answer: Yes, there are several church fathers, theologians, and authors
who were moving conspicuously in the same direction.
a. Augustine
Indeed, without justice, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what
are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up
of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by
the
pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If,
by
the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree
that
it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues
peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the
reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of
covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt
and
true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had
been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by
keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ÒWhat
thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty
ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet
art
styled emperor.Ó97
b. Chrysostom
For these passages of PaulÕs [i.e. Rom. 13:1-7ÑGLP]. . . relate not to
a
tyrant, but to a real and legitimate sovereign, who personates a
genuine god upon earth, and to whom resistance is certainly
resistance to the ordinance of God. 98
c. Theophylact
[The apostle speaks not in Rom. 13:1-7ÑGLP] concerning the power of
rulers, but concerning his office. 99
d. Manegold of Lautenbach
Writing in the context of the investiture controversy, the eleventh-
century author Manegold of Lautenbach distinguished (as Knox
essentially did later) between the office of the king, which was
sacred,
and an individual sovereign who could justly forfeit his authority. A
king does this when he becomes a tyrant, that is, when he destroys
justice, overthrows the peace, and breaks faith. Subjects are not
bound to obey a tyrannical ruler. Manegold also foreshadowed Knox in
propounding the idea of a contract (pactum ) between king and
people which was equally binding on both parties. 100
e. John of Salisbury
In the following century [i.e. the twelfth centuryÑGLP] John of
Salisbury stated a doctrine of tyrannicide [i.e. execution of a tyrantÑ
GLP] on the grounds that tyranny abused the power granted to man
by God. He cited biblical and classical precedents. . . . The
essence of his position was virtually the same as that enunciated by
Knox in 1558: the unjust ruler who violates the laws and customs of
his land no longer can claim the obedience of his subjects, who may
justly resist him and, if necessary, depose and execute him. 101
f. Thomas Aquinas
In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas opposed tyrannicide, but
nevertheless favored active resistance against a tyrannical ruler,
aimed at abolishing his tyranny in a manner that would not do
more harm than the tyranny itself. Consequently, in a manner
akin to Knox, Aquinas cautioned that Òaction against a tyrant should
not
be taken by the private presumption of individuals but rather by
public authority.Ó Because the contract between king and people is no
longer binding if the king acts in a tyrannical fashion, public
authority, Òthe multitude,Ó may depose him. 102
Appendix B
The United States Constitution;
and
Classic Vs. Modern Reformed Teachings Concerning Magistracy and Religion
The following appendix was written by a friend of our covenanted
reformation. I believe it will be helpful in briefly outlining our
position
respecting the civil magistrate, exposing the wickedness of the United
States Constitution, and demonstrating that no Christian can take an oath
to
uphold and defend this Constitution (as is required, for example, by all
military personnel in the United States), or submit to that government
for
conscience' sake, without denying his Lord. It also provides a sobering
demonstration of the egregious defection, in their very creeds, of modern
reformed denominations (e.g. the Presbyterian Church in America, the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North
America).ÑGLP
Synopsis of a biblical view of the civil magistrate;
including
I. an evaluation of any oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution
in
light of this, and
II. a brief comparison of the classic and American reformed views of the
Christian magistrates' power and duty concerning matters of religion,
exposing the defection of the latter.
by a friend of the covenanted reformation of religion
I. Synopsis of Scriptural magistracy and evaluation of the U. S.
Constitution
1) The magistracy is an ordinance of God, and as such, is subject to him
and exists for His glory (Rom. 13:1-2).
2) Since it exists by God's ordination, it derives both its ends and
means
from Him, and is not left to itself to determine either of these (Ps. 19;
Is.
8:20; Rom. 2:14-15; 3:19, 29; II Tim. 3:16-17).
3) Its ends are, with respect to God, His glory; with respect to man,
the
punishment of evil-doers and the praise of those who act righteously (I
Cor. 10:31; Rom. 13:1ff; I Pet. 2:14; I Tim. 2:2).
4) Since its ends are moral, its means must also be moral, and these
means
are revealed in the Law of Nature, and in the Scriptures, to which the
former Law is subordinate (not that ultimately there is any contradiction
between the two, but only because since the Fall our perception of the
former has been greatly distorted) (Ps. 19; Is. 8:20; Matt. 5:17ff.; Rom.
2:14-15; 3:19, 29). It is a clear and self-evident teaching of the law
of
nature (whose author is God-- Rom. 1:19-20, 32; 2:14-15) that when the
God of nature more clearly reveals Himself (as He does in the
Scriptures),
this clearer revelation should be embraced and obeyed.
5) In lands enlightened by the gospel, magistrates should only be such as
fulfil biblical requirements for their high office (Ex. 18:21; Deut.
1:13;
17:14-15;18,19).
6) Christian magistrates are required, in their official (as well as
private)
capacity, by covenant openly and willingly to acknowledge, submit to,
support, and defend the cause of Jesus Christ, to whom all authority and
power have been given. Thus, they must wholeheartedly support and
nurture the true reformed church, as: doctrinally, this church has
produced the purest expression of the form of sound words yet emitted by
the church of Jesus Christ (e.g. the Westminster standards); in worship,
she
has made the greatest strides in returning to apostolical purity and
simplicity; and in government and discipline, since the presbyterian form
of church government is the only ecclesiastical government and discipline
appointed by Christ in His Word (history having clearly shown the bloody
and destructive results of unbiblical forms of government, such as
episcopacy; Ps. 2:10-12; 2 Kings 23:3; 2 Chr. 29:10; 34:31; Neh. 9:36-38;
Ezra 9:13-14; Prov. 22:28; Phil. 3:16; Is. 49:23; 60:10,16).
7) As Christian magistrates (or magistrates to whom the gospel comes)
are
thus bound, in their official capacity, to "kiss the Son, lest he be
angry", and
to "serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling" (Ps. 2:11,12),
so,
too, should their laws and constitutions reflect this submission,
reverence,
and love (Pr. 14:34; Ezra 6:3,8,11,12; 7:13,21; 2 Chr. 34:31-33; Jer.
4:2; Ps.
94:20).
8) The U.S. Constitution, though it contains much that is salutary, does
not
meet the preceding biblical requirements, but rather opposes them. It
does so largely by omission; five specifics are:
I. Its criminal omission of the Triune God and its derivation of any
lawful authority from Him; and its failure to acknowledge the Supremacy
of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the prince of the Kings of the earth (Rev.
1:5).
II. Its failure to have the President swear, in his oath of office, to
uphold the requirements of the Scriptures for the civil magistrate. It
is
profitable and enlightening here to compare an example of a biblical
magisterial oath with what is found in the U.S. Constitution. The former
is
from the Scottish "National Covenant" of 1638 (pp. 345ff., in the Free
Presbyterian Publications' edition of the Westminster Standards):
That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and reception of their
princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn
oath,
in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring the whole time of
their
lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to the uttermost of their
power, according as he hath required in his most holy word, contained in
the Old and New Testament; and according to the same word shall maintain
the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy word, the
due
and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
within this realm, (according to the Confession of Faith immediately
preceding,) and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary
to the
same; and shall rule the people committed to their charge, according to
the
will and command of God revealed in his foresaid word, and according to
the laudable laws and constitutions received in this realm, nowise
repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; and shall procure, to the
uttermost of their power, to the kirk of God, and whole Christian people,
true and perfect peace in all time coming: and that they shall be
careful to
root out of their empire all hereticks and enemies to the true worship of
God, who shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid
crimes
(351-352).
From the U.S. Constitution:
Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following
Oath or Affirmation:-- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to
the best of my Ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of
the
United States."
III. Its blasphemous assertion that it, laws pursuant thereof, and
treaties made, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land" (Art. VI, p. 2),
rather than the Law of Jehovah and of His Messiah. Though it may be true
that the original intent, as per Hamilton (Federalist #33), was simply to
say
that in those areas where the federal government had been delegated
authority, the federal Constitution stood as Supreme over all inferior
constitutions or laws, the failure to make glad and explicit reference,
in
this crucial context, to the Law and the Testimony as being the ultimate
standard and the source of illumination (Is. 8:20) stands as yet another
criminal omission on the part of the Constitutional Convention, and an
indictment that they, rather than having light, were without it to a
substantial degree.
IV. Its violation of Deut. 1:13; 17:15; Ex. 18:21; Pr. 14:34; and many
other Scriptures, by forbidding any religious test for office for Federal
and
State office holders; Article VI, paragraph 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall
ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United
States.
V. Its wicked sanction of pluralism (if nothing else, "Christian"
pluralism, if by "religion" is only meant any particular Christian
denomination, and not "religion" in a broader sense) and toleration of
error; 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech,
or of the press. . . .
Compare this with the Scottish Confession of Faith (1560; co-authored by
John Knox), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (and cf. the oath
required of magistrates in the above cited National Covenant):
SCF, Ch. 24, "Of the Civil Magistrate":
Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that
chiefly
and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion
appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but
also for
maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and
superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and
others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.
WCF, Ch. 23, "Of the Civil Magistrate", Sect. 3:
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the
word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and
peace
be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and
entire,
that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and
abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the
ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the
better
effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them,
and
to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind
of God.
9) Because it does not meet the biblical requirements for civil
government
in a land that has enjoyed much Gospel light, it therefore stands in
opposition to the reformation, preservation, and propagation of the true
religion. There is no possible neutrality here: to omit (and certainly
this
omission was intentional) glad reference and submission to the benevolent
author of civil government, and to His King, is outright treason.
10) Since the U.S. Constitution thus stands opposed to the true
religion, it
is sinful for any to swear to uphold it, as this would be to take an oath
obliging one to sin, which is clearly forbidden in the Word and by reason
(cf. WCF XXII:IV); for the Scriptures teach, in the words of the Larger
Catechism (Q. 108; cf. 109): "The duties required in the second
commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire,
all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his
word. . . as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false
worship;
and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all
monuments of idolatry." Since the Christian is covenantally bound to
fulfill
these duties, he cannot at the same time swear to that which opposes
them; cf. WLC, Q. 113: "The sins forbidden in the third commandment are.
.
. fulfilling [oaths and vows], if of things unlawful."
Samuel Wylie, in Two Sons of Oil (published in 1850, now available from
Still Waters Revival Books;pp. 36-37) bemoans, "And I have never been
able to satisfy myself, how it was consistent, in those who profess
Presbyterianism, to swear an oath, which involves the supporting of
idolatry, &c., while, at the same time, in their creeds and church
constitutions, they solemnly recognize their obligation, in their
respective
stations, to remove every monument and vestige of it from the land."
11) Since the United States government does not meet the God-ordained
ends of civil government, it is not a lawful civil government, but rather
an
establishment of tyranny and usurpation. God requires submission for
conscience' sake only to lawful civil governments (Rom. 13:1-7);
conversely, He forbids submission for conscience' sake to unlawful
governments. Therefore, the Christian cannot submit to the United
States
government out of conscience (he can submit for wrath' sake, as one
submits to a robber's demands), as to the ordinance of God; for the
United
States (and other immoral civil governments) derive their power and
authority not from God, but from the Beast (Rev. 13:2,4).
Consider the following historical corroboration from The Reformed
Presbyterian Catechism, by William Roberts, D.D., 1853, pp. 153-155 (all
emphases in original):
Q. Upon what grounds do they [Reformed Presbyterians] state their
dissent from the constitution of the United States?
A. In their testimony entitled, 'Reformation Principles,' they declare,
'There are moral evils essential to the constitution of the United
States,
which render it necessary to refuse allegiance to the whole system. In
this
remarkable instrument there is contained no acknowledgment of the being
or authority of God. There is no acknowledgment of the Christian
religion,
or professed submission to the kingdom of Messiah. It gives support to
the
enemies of the Redeemer, and admits to its honors and emoluments, Jews,
Mahometans, Deists, and Atheists....Õ
Q. Is it indeed true, that this famous constitution does not recognise
the
being or authority of God, or the regal authority of Jesus Christ, 'the
prince
of the kings of the earth?'
A. It does not. If it did, the acknowledgment would be found in the
PREAMBLE, which is as follows:--'We, the people of the United States, in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.'
Q. Is there any recognition of the being and authority of God and his
Christ in this part of this important instrument?
A. There is evidently not. The supreme authority is evidently that only
of WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES: God and his Christ are not
mentioned, nor the mediatorial supremacy recognised.
Q. But is not the being and authority of God recognised in the oath of
office required of the President of the United States, in these words, 'I
do
solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States,' &c.?
A. Not necessarily of the TRUE GOD. Because, 1. We learn from a
member of the convention that framed the constitution, LUTHER MARTIN,
delegate from Maryland, that the subject was debated in the convention,
and the recognition refused. 'The part of the system which requires that
"no religious test" shall ever be required as a qualification of any
office or
public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of
the convention, and without much debate. However, there were some
members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a
Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments, would be some
security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian
country
it would be, at least, decent to hold out some distinction between the
professors of Christianity, and downright infidelity and Paganism.'--
Genuine Information, p. 87. From this information it appears that the
president may be an Atheist, according to the constitution, and the oath
of
office is, therefore, not a recognition of the being of a God, as his
name is
not mentioned in the form of the oath, and contains no appeal to Him. 2.
The Heathen swore by their Gods, but this was not a recognition OF GOD;
nor is he pleased with such service. Jer. v.7. 'How shall I pardon thee
for
this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no
gods.'
3. As it was evidently intended that Atheists might hold office, by what
God would they swear, who deny the existence of a Deity, and a future
state of rewards and punishments?
Q. Does not the constitution recognise the Christian religion, and
express
its subjection to the kingdom of the Messiah?
A. It evidently does not. 1. From the above testimony of Luther Martin,
that it was designed to hold out 'no distinction between the professors
of
Christianity and downright infidelity and Paganism.' 2. From the 2d Sec.
of
Art. 6th, in which it is declared, 'This constitution, and the laws of
the
United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all TREATIES
made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.' In the treaty with 'TRIPOLI,'
[1797] Mahometanism is declared to be as much the religion of this nation
as Christianity. 'The Government,' says this "supreme law," 'of the
United
States IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. It has
in itself no character of enmity against the laws or religion of
Mussulmen
[Muslims]."-- U. S. Laws, Vol. 4, Trip. Treat. Art. 2. Christianity--the
laws of
the Bible, are in no sense an element of the constitution. The supreme
law
is, THE WILL of WE THE PEOPLE, expressed in the constitution, laws, and
treaties with foreign powers. The nation, as such, is INFIDEL. Yea, it
is a
nation without a God. Is. lx. 12. And the 'justice' which they would
'establish,' is not that which is founded upon that attribute of God, but
that
only which the will of 'we the people' shall determine to be justice.
Q. Does the constitution give support to the enemies of the Redeemer,
and admit to its honours and emoluments those who are adverse to his
authority, religion, and laws, even Mahometans, Deists, and Atheists?
A. This is manifestly so; as a supreme law declares it is not in any
sense
founded on the religion of the Bible, and refuses, as a qualification for
office, that the office-bearer should believe in the existence of a
Deity, or a
future state of rewards and punishments; as a consequence, infidels have
occupied, and Atheists may occupy the highest seat in the gift of we the
people. In contrast, the scriptures require, He that ruleth over men
must
be just, RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD.
II. Classic vs. modern reformed teachings concerning magistracy and
religion
We turn now to several quotations from reformed creeds and eminent
reformed writers, concerning the Christian magistrates' power and
authority about (not in, as this is the domain of Christ and His
delegated
church officers alone) matters of religion. After these, appropriate
sections
from the original Westminster Confession are compared with the creedal
standards of three prominent reformed denominations in our day, the
Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and
the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America. Commentary by B. B.
Warfield as to what these revisions entailed (he himself apparently
favorable to them) concludes this outline. Apart from a consideration of
which position is correct, it is immediately evident that these modern
reformed denominations (and Warfield) take a position of the magistracy
bearing much more resemblance to the pluralism of the United States
Constitution, than to the citations from our reformed heritage. If,
indeed,
our forefathers in the faith were wrong, wherein lay their error, and why
was their position held not by one or two isolated churches but by
virtually all the reformed churches, spanning several countries, during
times of great reformation?
It is this author's contention that the modern churches have let go of
this important piece of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Thereby they have delivered the church, not to kings as nursing fathers,
but to the cruel civil domination of the enemies of the true religion,
their
sheep being taught that they must submit passively to every pretended
civil authority as the ordinance of God. By this defection, these
leaders of
the flock have also undermined the magistracy, allowing and even
encouraging wicked men to remove this blessed ordinance from its
foundation in God its creator, and from its subjection to Christ His
King,
thereby directly opposing God's benevolent ends in instituting civil
government: "Thus have [they] made the commandment of God of none
effect by [their] tradition. . . . teaching for doctrines the
commandments of
men" (Matt. 15:6, 9). Furthermore, by their false teaching regarding
civil
government, they have made themselves guilty of the very sin of which
we are often accused: opposing the ordinance of God. If this wasnÕt
enough, however, consider that their sin is worse than that of the garden
variety rebel, inasmuch as their opposition to GodÕs institution is not
so
much practical as it is principial; and because of their position as
teachers
and guides of the flock of God. ÒBe not many masters, knowing that we
shall receive the greater condemnation. . . . For we can do nothing
against
the truth, but for the truthÓ (James 3:1; II Cor. 13:8)
Classic reformed citations
John Calvin, the French Reformer, from The Necessity of Reforming the
Church, (1543),
p. 146:
There is nothing in which all men ought to feel a deeper interest,
nothing
in which God wishes us to exhibit a more intense zeal, than in
endeavoring
that the glory of his name may remain unimpaired, his kingdom be
advanced, and the pure doctrine, which alone can guide us to true
worship,
flourish in full vigor. How much more, therefore, does it become princes
to
make these things their care, to design, commence, and prosecute them to
a close, seeing God has honored them with a communication of his name,
that they may be on earth the guardians and vindicators of his glory.
John Knox, the Scottish Reformer, from The First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment [government] of Women (1558):
If any thinks that the fore written law [Deut. 17:14-15] did bind the
Jews only, let the same man consider that the election of a king and
appointing of judges did neither appertain to the ceremonial law, neither
yet was it merely judicial; but that it did flow from the moral law, as
an
ordinance having respect to the conservation of both the tables. For the
office of the magistrate ought to have the first and chief respect to the
glory of God, commanded and contained in the former table, as is evident
by that which was enjoined to Joshua, what time he was accepted and
admitted ruler and governor over his people, in these words [cf. Josh.
1:1-
9]: 'Thou shalt divide the inheritance to this people, the which I have
sworn to their fathers to give unto them; so that thou be valiant and
strong, that thou mayest keep and do according to that holy law, which my
servant Moses hast commanded thee. Thou shalt not decline from it,
neither to the right hand, neither to the left hand, that thou mayest do
prudently in all things that thou takest in hand. Let not the book of
this
law depart from thy mouth; but meditate in it day and night, that thou
mayest keep and do according to everything that is written in it. For
then
shall thy ways prosper, and then shalt thou do prudently,' etc.
And God gives the same precept by the mouth of Moses to kings, after
they are elected, in these words [Deut. 17:18-20]: 'When he shall sit in
the
throne, or seat of his kingdom, he shall write to himself a copy of this
law
in a book. And that shall be with him, that he may read in it all the
days
of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the
words
of this law, and all these statutes, that he may do them,' etc. Of these
two
places it is evident, that principally it appertains to the king, or to
the chief
magistrate, to know the will of God, to be instructed in his law and
statutes, and to promote his glory with his whole heart and study, which
are the chief points of the first table.
No man denies, but that the sword is committed to the magistrate, to
the end that he should punish vice and maintain virtue. To punish vice,
I
say: not only that which troubles the tranquillity and quiet estate of
the
commonwealth (by adultery, theft, or murder committed), but also such
vices as openly impugn the glory of God, as idolatry, blasphemy, and
manifest heresy, taught and obstinately maintained, as the histories and
notable acts of Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah do plainly teach us;
whose study and care was not only to glorify God in their own life and
conversation, but also they unfeignedly did travail to bring their
subjects
to the true worshipping and honouring of God; and did destroy all
monuments of idolatry, did punish to death the teachers of it, and
removed
from office and honours such as were maintainers of those abominations.
Whereby, I suppose, that it is evident, that the office of the king, or
supreme magistrate, has respect to the moral law, and to the conservation
of both the tables.
Now, if the moral law is the constant and unchangeable will of God, to
which the Gentile is no less bound than was the Jew; and if God wills,
that
amongst the Gentiles the ministers and executors of his law be now
appointed, as sometimes they were appointed amongst the Jews; further, if
the execution of justice is no less requisite in the policy of the
Gentiles,
than ever it was amongst the Jews; what man can be so foolish to suppose
or believe, that God will now admit those persons to sit in judgment, or
to
reign over men in the commonwealth of the Gentiles, whom he by his
expressed word and ordinance did before debar and exclude from the
same?
From his "Summary of the Proposed Second Blast of the Trumpet" (1558):
1. It is not birth only, nor propinquity of blood, that makes a king
lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ Jesus and his eternal
verity; but in his election must the ordinance, which God has established
in
the election of inferior judges, be observed.
2. No manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God's holy
precepts, ought to be promoted to any public regiment [government],
honour, or dignity, in any realm, province, or city that has subjected
itself
to his blessed evangel.
3. Neither can oath nor promise bind any such people to obey and
maintain tyrants against God and against his truth known.
4. But if either rashly they have promoted any manifestly wicked, or
yet ignorantly have chosen such a one, as after declares himself unworthy
of regiment above the people of God (and such be all idolaters and cruel
persecutors), most justly may the same men depose and punish him, that
unadvisedly before they did nominate, appoint, and elect.
Scottish Confession of Faith (1560-- co-authored by Scottish reformer,
John
Knox), ch. 24, ÒOf the Civil Magistrate":
Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that
chiefly
and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion
appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but
also for
maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and
superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and
others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.
Scottish National Covenant (1580, 1581, 1590, 1638-40, 1650, 1651):
That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and reception of their
princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn
oath,
in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring the whole time of
their
lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to the uttermost of their
power, according as he hath required in his most holy word, contained in
the Old and New Testament; and according to the same word shall maintain
the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy word, the
due
and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
within this realm, (according to the Confession of Faith immediately
preceding [that is, the Scottish Confession of Faith of 1560],) and shall
abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall
rule
the people committed to their charge, according to the will and command
of God revealed in his foresaid word, and according to the laudable laws
and constitutions received in this realm, nowise repugnant to the said
will
of the eternal God; and shall procure, to the uttermost of their power,
to
the kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in
all
time coming: and that they shall be careful to root out of their empire
all
hereticks and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted
by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes.
Solemn League and Covenant (1643-44; 1648, 1650, 1651):
That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the
extirpation of Popery, Prelacy,. . . superstition, heresy, schism,
profaneness,
and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the
power of godliness, lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be
in
danger to receive of their plagues. . . . We shall also, with all
faithfulness,
endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be
incendiaries,
malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of
religion. . .
or making any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this
League and Covenant; that they may be brought to publick trial, and
receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require
or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or
others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient. .
. .
that justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof, in manner
expressed in the precedent article [that is, article IV].
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): found below, to allow immediate
comparison with the modern reformed creeds.
Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), Questions 108, 109, 113; compare
these with the duties of the civil magistrate concerning Christ's church
as
found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, cited below:
The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving,
observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and
ordinances as God hath instituted in his word. . . as also the
disapproving,
detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each oneÕs
place
and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry. . . . The sins
forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling,
commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not
instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion. . . corrupting
the
worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and
taken
up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the
title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence
whatsoever. . . all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the
worship
and ordinances which God hath appointed. . . . The sins forbidden in the
third commandment [include]. . . fulfilling [our oaths and vows] if of
things
unlawful [that is, if the content is inherently sinful]. . . .
George Gillespie (1640Õs); Scottish minister and eminent Scottish
delegate
to the Westminster Assembly:
One Hundred and Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and
Government of the Church (1642):
41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge,
that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper
and defender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly
to
take care of GodÕs glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner
and
way) to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and
corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools
also
and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice and
civil
peace.
42. Wherefore the opinion of those sectaries of this age is altogether
to
be disallowed, who, though otherwise insinuating themselves craftily into
the magistrateÕs favour, do deny unto him the authority and right of
restraining heretics and schismatics, and do hold and maintain that such
persons, how much soever hurtful and pernicious enemies to true religion
and to the church, yet are to be tolerated by the magistrate, if so be he
conceive them to be such as no way violate the laws of the commonwealth,
and in nowise disturb the civil peace.
Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty (mid-1640Õs):
And lest it be thought that this is but the opinion of some few, that
the
magistrate ought thus by a strong hand, and by civil punishments suppress
heretics and sectaries: let it be observed what is held forth and
professed
concerning this business, by the Reformed Churches in their public
confessions of faith. In the latter Confession of Helvetia (cap. 30), it
is said
that the magistrate ought to Ôroot out lies and all superstition, with
all
impiety and idolatry.Õ And after, ÔLet him suppress stubborn heretics.Õ
In
the French Confession (art. 39), ÔTherefore he hath also delivered the
sword into the hands of Magistrates, to wit, that offenses may be
repressed, not only those which are committed against the second table,
but also against the first.Õ In the Belgic Confession (art. 36),
ÔTherefore
hath he armed the Magistrate with the sword for punishing them that do
evil, and for defending such as do well. Moreover it is their duty not
only
to be careful and watchful for the preservation of the civil government,
but also to defend the holy ministry, and to abolish and overthrow all
idolatry, and counterfeit worship of God.Õ Beza (De Hareticis), tells us
in the
beginning, that the ministers of Helvetia had declared themselves to be
of
the same judgment, in a book published of that argument. And toward the
end he cites the Saxon Confession, Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus,
Wolfgangus Capito, and Bullinger. The Synod of Dordt (ses. 138), in
their
sentence against the Remonstrants does not only interdict them of all
their
ecclesiastical and academical functions, but [does] also beseech the
States
General by their secular power to suppress and restrain them.
Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (The Divine Right of Church
Government), by Sundry Ministers of Christ Within the City of London
(1646):
Nor is this only our private judgment, or the opinion of some few
particular persons touching the granting or bounding of the magistrate's
power about matters of religion; but with us we have the suffrage of many
reformed churches, who, in their Confessions of Faith published to the
world, do fully and clearly express themselves to the same effect.
The Helvetian church thus: Since every magistrate is of God, it is
(unless he would exercise tyranny) his chief duty, all blasphemy being
repressed, to defend and provide for religion, and to execute this to his
utmost strength, as the prophet teacheth out of the word; in which
respect
the pure and free preaching of God's word, a right, diligent, and well-
instituted discipline of youth, citizens and scholars; a just and liberal
maintenance of the ministers of the church, and a solicitous care of the
poor, (whereunto all ecclesiastical means belong,) have the first place.
After this, &c.
The French churches thus: He also therefore committed the sword into
the magistrates' hands, that they might repress faults committed not only
against the second table, but also against the first; therefore we
affirm,
that their laws and statutes ought to be obeyed, tribute to be paid, and
other burdens to be borne, the yoke of subjection voluntarily to be
undergone, yea, though the magistrates should be infidels, so long as the
supreme government of God remains perfect and untouched, Matt. xxiv.;
Acts iv. 17, and v. 19; Jude verse 8.
The church of Scotland thus: Moreover we affirm, that the purging and
conserving of religion is the first and most especial duty of kings,
princes,
governors, and magistrates. So that they are ordained of God not only
for
civil polity, but also for the conservation of true religion, and that
all
idolatry and superstition may be suppressed: as is evident in David,
Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others, adorned with high praises for
their singular zeal.
The Belgic church thus: Therefore he hath armed the magistrates with a
sword, that they may punish the bad and defend the good. Furthermore, it
is their duty not only to be solicitous about preserving of civil polity,
but
also to give diligence that the sacred ministry may be preserved, all
idolatry and adulterate worship of God may be taken out of the way, the
kingdom of antichrist may be pulled down, but Christ's kingdom
propagated. Finally, it is their part to take course, that the holy word
of
the gospel be preached on every side, that all may freely and purely
serve
and worship God according to the precept of his word. And all men, of
whatsoever dignity, condition, or state they be, ought to be subject to
lawful magistrates, to pay them tribute and subsidies, to obey them in
all
things which are not repugnant to the word of God; to pour out prayers
for
them, that God would vouchsafe to direct them in all their actions, and
that
we may under them lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and all turbulent men who
cast off superior dominions and magistrates, pervert laws and judgments,
make all goods common, and finally abolish or confound all orders and
degrees which God hath constituted for honesty's sake among men.
The church in Bohemia thus: They teach also that it is commanded in
the word of God that all should be subject to the higher powers in all
things, yet in those things only which are not repugnant to God and his
word. But as touching those things which concern men's souls, faith, and
salvation, they teach that men should hearken only to God's word, &c.,
his
ministers, as Christ himself saith, Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar's, and to God those things that are God's. But if any would
compel
them to those things which are against God, and fight and strive against
his
word, which abideth forever; they teach them to make use of the apostle's
example, who thus answered the magistrate at Jerusalem: It is meet (say
they) to obey God rather than men.
Finally, the church in Saxony hath expressed herself notably in this
point, saying, among many other passages, God will have all men, yea,
even
unregenerate men, to be ruled and restrained by political government.
And in this government the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God to
mankind do shine forth. His wisdom, order declares, which is the
difference of virtues and vices, and the consociation of men by lawful
governments and contracts ordained in wonderful wisdom. God's justice
also is seen in political government, who will have manifest wickednesses
to be punished by magistrates; and when they that rule punish not the
guilty, God himself wonderfully draws them to punishment, and regularly
punishes heinous faults with heinous penalties in this life, as it is
said, He
that takes the sword shall perish by the sword; and, Whoremongers and
adulterers God will judge. God will have in these punishments the
difference of vices and virtues to be seen; and will have us learn that
God
is wise, just, true, chaste. God's goodness also to mankind is beheld,
because by this means he preserves the society of men, and therefore he
preserves in that thence the Church may be gathered, and will have
polities to be the Church's inns. Of these divine and immoveable laws,
which are testimonies of God, and the chief rule of manners, the
magistrate
is to be keeper in punishing all that violate them. For the voice of the
law,
without punishment and execution, is of small avail to bridle and
restrain
men; therefore it is said by Paul, The power should be a terror to evil
works, and an honor to the good. And antiquity rightly said, The
magistrate is the keeper of the law, both of the first and second table,
so
far as appertains to good order. And though many in their governments
neglect the glory of God, yet this ought to be their chief care, to hear
and
embrace the true doctrine touching the Son of God, and to foster the
churches, as the psalm saith, And now understand, ye kings, and be
instructed, ye judges of the earth. Again, Open your gates, ye princes,
i.e.,
Open your empires to the gospel, and afford harbor to the Son of God.
And
Isa. xlix.: And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and queens, i.e.
commonwealths, shall be thy nursing-mothers, i.e., of the Church, they
shall afford lodgings to churches and pious studies. And kings and
princes
themselves shall be members of the Church, and shall rightly understand
doctrine, shall not help those that establish false doctrine, and
exercise
unjust cruelty, but shall be mindful of this saying, "I will glorify them
that
glorify me." And Daniel exhorteth the king of Babylon unto the
acknowledgment of God's wrath, and to clemency towards the exiled
Church, when he saith, "Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine
iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." And since they are among the
chief members of the Church, they should see that judgment be rightly
exercised in the Church, as Constantine, Theodosius, Arcadius, Marcianus,
Charles the Great, and many pious kings, took care that the judgments of
the Church should be rightly exercised, &c.
The following are a comparison of the original Westminster Confession of
Faith and the revisions of it held by modern reformed churches. Included
as well are some remarkable quotations from a modern presbyterian on
the nature and degree of these revisions, the eminent B. B. Warfield,
himself (judging at very least by his denominational affiliation) a
supporter of the revisions. The following abbreviations will be used:
WCF-- original Confession of Faith emitted by the Westminster Assembly,
and adopted by the Church of Scotland, 1647.
PCA/OPC-- revision of the 1647 Westminster Confession, adopted by the
Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
printed by Great Commissions Publications (which revisions they
erroneously title "The Westminster Standards").
RPCNA-- revision of the 1647 Westminster Confession, adopted by the
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. It should be noted that
this church once held to the original 1647 Confession and so has defected
from its own standards, making its departure from the truth that much
more heinous than the PCA and OPC.
Chapter 20, "Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience", section 4:
WCF: And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty
which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but
mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of
Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise
of
it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.
And for
their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as
are
contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of
Christianity,
whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of
godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their
own
nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are
destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established
in the church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded
against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil
magistrate.
PCA/OPC: And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the
liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy,
but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon
pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the
lawful
exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the
ordinance of
God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such
practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known
principles
of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or
to
the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as
either
in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them,
are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath
established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and
proceeded against, by the censures of the church.
Chapter 22, "Of lawful Oaths and Vows", section 3
WCF: Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of
so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully
persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any
thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what
he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath
touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful
authority.
PCA/OPC: Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the
weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what
he
is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by
oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to
be,
and what he is able and resolved to perform.
Chapter 23, ÒOf the Civil MagistrateÓ, section 3:
WCF: The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration
of
the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that
unity
and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure
and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all
corruptions
and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the
ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the
better
effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them,
and
to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind
of God.
PCA/OPC: Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the
administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of
the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.
Yet,
as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the
church
of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of
Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical
persons
whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of
discharging
every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And,
as
Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his
church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder,
the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any [emphasis
original] denomination of Christians, according to their own profession
and
belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and
good
name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person
be
suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any
indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever:
and
to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held
without molestation or disturbance.
RPCNA: Confession: 3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself
the
administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of
the
kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take
order,
that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be
kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed;
all
corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed;
and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.
For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be
present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be
according to the mind of God.
Testimony: 18. We reject [emphasis original] the portion of the
paragraph 3 after the colon [viz. after, Òthe kingdom of heaven:Ó]
Chapter 31, "Of Synods and Councils", sections 1 and 2:
WCF: I. For the better government, and further edification of the
church,
there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or
Councils.
II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other
fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so if
magistrates be open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ, of
themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons
upon
delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.
III. It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine
controversies of faith, etc.
PCA/OPC: I. For the better government, and further edification of the
church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods
or councils [emphases original]: and it belongeth to the overseers and
other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and
the
power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for
destruction,
to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as
they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.
II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine
controversies of faith, etc.
RPCNA: Confession: 1. I. For the better government, and further
edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are
commonly called synods or councils.
2. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and
other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of
religion; so
if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of
themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons,
upon
delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.
3. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine
controversies of faith, etc.
Testimony: 3. We reject paragraph 2 of the Confession of Faith
[italics original].
Warfield: These are excerpted from, The Westminster Assembly and Its
Work, article 4: "The Printing of the Confession", Section IV: "In
Modification", pp. 368-376. Emphases have been added.
The chief bone of contention here [speaking of the Parliamentary
version of the Confession,Òacting in the Independent interest,Ó published
at
the end of June, 1648] concerned, of course , the organization of the
churches into a Church, provided with a series of courts clothed with
authoritative jurisdiction. With this was involved the whole subject of
Church discipline. And more remotely there came to be connected with it
the question of a limited toleration, not so much of divergencies in
doctrine
as of differences in Church organization, government, and forms of
worship. To meet the case thus raised the Parliament simply struck out
of
the document the whole series of sections treating of Church government
and discipline.Ó--p. 371
[Note: the remarkable preceding statement must be compared with the
wording of the Solemn League and Covenant, wherein is stated the
covenanted intent of the Westminster Assembly: Ò. . . and shall
endeavour
to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest
conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of
church-
government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our
posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the
Lord
may delight to dwell in the midst of us.Ó What are we supposed to think
the Westminster delegates, all of whom swore this covenant, would have
said of WarfieldÕs idea that two of the four stated ends of that Assembly
were not central to the Confession, and did not constitute Òdivergencies
of
doctrineÓ?]
But only in the two points of Church government and ÒdisciplineÓ and of
ÒtolerationÓ did they modify greatly its teaching.
It was reserved to Presbyterians, after all, to make the 'intolerant'
teaching of the Westminster Confession a really constraining ground for
modifying the document.--p. 372
The fact is that in the seventeenth century 'toleration' was rather a
sentiment of the oppressed than a reasoned principle of Christian ethics:
while unrestricted 'religious liberty' had scarcely risen on the horizon
of
men's thoughts. Whatever was done toward freeing the Westminster
Confession from 'intolerant principles' in that age was therefore fitful
and
unstable, and rather a measure of self-protection than the consistent
enunciation of a thoroughly grasped fundamental principle. Thus it
happened that the American Presbyterians were the first to prepare
modifications of the Westminster Confession which turned on the precise
point of the duty of universal toleration, or rather of the fundamental
right
of unrestricted religious liberty. The first modifications in the
interests of
the principle of religious freedom and the equality of all forms of
religious
faith before the law, was that made by the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America in 1789. The Associate Reformed church
followed in the same pathway in 1799; and the United Presbyterian
Church has continued this testimony in its own way ever since its
formation in 1858. Thus it has come about that practically the whole
body
of American Presbyterians has cleansed the Westminster Confession from
every phrase which could by any form of interpretation be made to favor
intolerance and has substituted the broadest assertion of religious
liberty.-
-p. 373
The Independents, Baptists, American Presbyterians alike gave the
heartiest assent to the Reformed faith as set forth in this Confession;
and it
was only because they recognized in its form of sound words the
expression of their fundamental belief that they busied themselves with
adjusting it in minor matters to their opinions and practices.
--p. 374
In the course of the two hundred and fifty years that have elapsed
since its formulation the Westminster Confession has thus been sent out
into the world in some half-dozen modifications. Some of these
modifications concern so small a portion and so subordinate an element in
the document that it becomes doubtful whether the publications in which
they are embodied should not be rather treated as editions than as
modifications of it. The Parliamentary edition of 1648 [of Independent
persuasion] and the Confessions of the American Presbyterian Churches
belong to this class. . . ."
--p.375
Appendix C
The Solemn League and
Covenant
1 George Gillespie, AaronÕs Rod Blossoming (Harrisonburg, Virginia:
Sprinkle Publications, [1646] 1985), p. 113.
2 George Gillespie, The Works Of George Gillespie , ÒOne Hundred and
Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the
ChurchÓ (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books, [1642] 1991),
1:13.
3 John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, IV:XX:2
(Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, [1536] 1960), 2:1487.
4 Ibid. p. 1488.
5 Ibid. p. 1495.
6 John Knox, Works Of John Knox, ÒThe First Blast of the Trumpet Against
the Monstrous Regiment of WomenÓ (Edinburgh: Printed For The
Bannatyne Club, [1558] 1855), IV:399.
7 John Knox, Works Of John Knox, ÒSummary of the Proposed Second Blast
of the TrumpetÓ (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558]
1855), IV:539,540.
8 George Buchanan, De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue Concerning The
Rights Of The Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle
Publications, [1579] 1982),
p. 276.
9 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg,
Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 4.
10 Ibid. p. 218.
11 George Gillespie, The Works Of George Gillespie , ÒOne Hundred and
Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the
ChurchÓ (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books, [1642] 1991),
1:12.
12 David W. Hall, ed., Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici; The Divine
Right Of Church Government, (Dallas,Texas: Naphtali Press [1646] 1995),
pp. 79-80. Emphases added.
13 ÒThe Confession of SaxonyÓ, The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions ,
Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1536]
1992), p. 487.
14 ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ of Scotland, Chapter 24, The Scottish
Confession Of Faith, (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications,
[1560] 1993), p. 42.
15 ÒThe National Covenant,Ó Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes:
Free Presbyterian Publications, [1638] 1983), pp. 351,352.
16 ÒThe Solemn League And Covenant,Ó Westminster Confession of Faith
(Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1643] 1983), p. 359.
Emphases
added.
17 ÒThe Confession of Faith,Ó Chapter XXIII, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp.
101,102.
18 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, ÒA seasonable and necessary
Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and
concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this
Kirk,
unto all the Members thereofÓ, 27 July 1649, Session 27, p. 460.
Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been
retained.
19 John Knox, Works Of John Knox, ÒSummary of the Proposed Second
Blast of the TrumpetÓ (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558]
1855), IV:539. Emphases added.
20 Ibid. p. 540. Emphases added.
21 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 7.
Emphases added.
22 Ibid. p. 9. Emphases added.
23 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, ÒA seasonable and necessary
Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and
concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this
Kirk,
unto all the Members thereofÓ, 27 July 1649, Session 27, p. 460.
Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been
retained.
24 John Knox, ÒThe Appellation from the Sentence Pronounced by the
Bishops and Clergy: Addressed to the Nobility and Estates of ScotlandÓ,
The
Selected Writings Of John Knox (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage
Publications [1558] 1995), pp. 490,491. Emphases added.
25 Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed
(Geneva: John Crispin, 1558), pp. 118,119. Emphases added. The
spelling
in this excerpt has been edited from the original document.
26 ÒThe Confession of SaxonyÓ, The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions ,
Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1536]
1992), p. 486. Emphases added.
27 ÒThe Confession Of FaithÓ of Scotland, Chapter 24, The Scottish
Confession Of Faith (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications,
[1560] 1993), pp. 41,42. Emphases added. The parenthetical
qualification
is in the original document, and significantly limits non-resistance to
the
civil magistrate so long as he is Òdoing that thing which appertains to
his
charge.Ó Similarly, in ÒThe Confession Of FaithÓ of Scotland, Chapter
14,
one of the sins which displeases God and Òprovokes him to angerÓ is Òto
disobey or resist any that God has placed in authority (while they pass
not
over the bounds of their office).Ó Again, the parenthetical limitation
is
original and is intended to make clear that when the civil magistrate
does
pass over the lawful bounds of his office, he may be lawfully resisted.
28 ÒThe Belgic ConfessionÓ, Article 36, The Harmony Of Protestant
Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival
Books
[1566] 1992), p. 483. Emphases added.
29 ÒThe Confession of Faith,Ó Chapter XX, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp. 87.
Emphases added.
30 John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, IV:XX:31
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, [1536] 1960), 2:1519. Emphases
added.
31 John Calvin, ÒCommentaries On The Prophet DanielÓ, CalvinÕs
Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, [1561] 1979),
Xll:382. Emphases added.
32 John Ponet, A Short Treatise Of Politic Power, And Of The True
Obedience Which Subjects Owe To Kings And Other Civil Governors, With
An Exhortation To All True Natural English Men (The publisher is cited
as
D.I.P.B.R.W.: 1556), p. 57. Emphases added. The spelling and
capitalization
have been edited from the original document.
33 John Knox, Works Of John Knox, ÒSummary of the Proposed Second
Blast of the TrumpetÓ (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558]
1855), IV:540. Emphases added.
34 Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed
(Geneva: John Crispin, 1558), pp. 118,119. Emphases added. The
spelling
has been edited from the original document.
35 Ibid. p. 110. Emphases added. The spelling has been edited from
the original document.
36 Ibid. p. 139. Emphases added. The spelling has been edited from
the original document.
37 Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos; A Defence of Liberty
Against Tyrants (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1579]
1989), p. 22. Emphases added.
38 Ibid. p. 31. Emphases added.
39 Ibid. Emphases added.
40 George Buchanan, De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue Concerning
The Rights Of The Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle
Publications, [1579] 1982),
p. 261. Emphases added.
41 Henry Bullinger, ÒHenry Bullinger On The Duties Of Rulers And
SubjectsÓ, Puritan Political Ideas 1558-1794, ed. Edmund Morgan (New
York: The Bobbs-Merill Co., Inc. [1587] 1965), p. 19. Emphases added.
42 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 141.
Emphases added.
43 Ibid. p. 220. Emphases added.
44 John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetical Relation Of The Particular
Sufferings Of The Faithful Ministers And Professors Of The Church Of
Scotland, Since August 1660, (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd
[1665] 1845), p. 86. Emphases added.
45 Alexander Shields, A Hind Let Loose, (Glasgow: John Kirk, Calton
[1688] 1797),
p. 313. Emphases added.
46 Ibid. pp. 325-326. Emphases added.
47 Ibid. pp. 326-327. Emphases added.
48 ÒThe First Helvetic ConfessionÓ, The Harmony Of Protestant
Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival
Books
[1536] 1992), p. 475. Emphases added. The parenthetical qualification
is
in the original document and indicates that only he is a magistrate of
God
who does not exercise tyranny. Thus, conscientious submission to a
tyrant
is not solicited by this confessional statement.
49 ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ of Scotland, Chapter 14, The Scottish
Confession Of Faith (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications,
[1560] 1993), p. 25. The parenthetical limitation is in the original
document and is intended to make clear that when the civil magistrate
passes over the lawful bounds of his office, he is no longer acting as
Òthe
ordinance of GodÓ and therefore is to be lawfully resisted.
50 ÒThe Confession Of FaithÓ of Scotland, Chapter 24, The Scottish
Confession Of Faith (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications,
[1560] 1993), p. 42. The parenthetical qualification is in the original
document, and limits non-resistance to the civil magistrate so long as he
is
Òdoing that thing which appertains to his charge.Ó Otherwise he must be
resisted.
51 ÒThe Belgic ConfessionÓ, Article 36, The Harmony Of Protestant
Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival
Books
[1566] 1992), p. 483. Emphases added. This reformed confession states
that all men ought to be subject to Òlawful magistratesÓ and ought to
obey
only in matters that Òare not repugnant to the word of God.Ó It is
plainly to
be inferred that unlawful tyrants cannot have a ChristianÕs subjection
for
conscience sake (thus they must be resisted). Thus, conscientious
submission to a tyrant is not solicited by this confessional statement.
52 ÒThe Confession of FaithÓ, Chapter XX, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp. 87.
Emphases added.
53 ÒThe Larger Catechism,Ó Question 99, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), p. 183.
Emphases added.
54 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, ÒA seasonable and necessary
Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and
concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this
Kirk,
unto all the Members thereofÓ, 27 July 1649, Session 27, pp. 456-458.
Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been
retained.
55 For more information concerning the matter of covenanting, cf.
Appendix C in this book, as well as The Duty And Perpetual Obligation of
Social Covenanting produced by the Session of Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton, available through Still Waters Revival Books.
56 The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland:
From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 4 June 1644, Session 7,
ÒThe Letter from the Synod of Divines in the Kirk of England, to the
General
AssemblyÓ, pp. 231,232. Emphases added.
57 The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland:
From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 27 July 1649, Session 27,
ÒA seasonable and necessary Waring and Declaration, concerning Present
and Imminent dangers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the
Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereofÓ, p. 460.
Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been
retained.
58 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 6 August 1649, Session
Ultimate, ÒA Brotherly Exhortation from the Generall Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, to their Brethren in EnglandÓ, pp. 474,475. Emphases
added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.
59 Ibid. p. 475. Emphases added. The original spelling and
capitalization have been retained.
60 William M. Hetherington, History Of The Westminster Assembly Of
Divines, (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1856] 1993),
pp.
337-339. Emphases added.
61 ÒThe Confession of Faith,Ó Chapter XXII, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp.
96-98.
Emphases added.
62 ÒThe Larger Catechism,Ó Question 108, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), p. 193.
Emphases added.
63 Samuel Wylie, Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For
Magistracy And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis (Pottstown,
Pennsylvania: Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing [1803]
1995), pp. 36,37.
64 John Cunningham, The Ordinance of Covenanting, (Glasgow: William
Marshall, 1843), p. 392. Emphases added.
65 Samuel Wylie, Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For
Magistracy And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis (Pottstown,
Pennsylvania: Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing [1803]
1995), pp. 43,44. The italics are original, the bold has been added for
emphases.
66 ÒThe Larger Catechism,Ó Question 190, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), p. 273.
Emphases added.
67 ÒThe Larger Catechism,Ó Question 191, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), pp.
274,275. Emphases added.
68 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 159.
Emphases added.
69 Ibid. p. 232. Emphases added.
70 Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos; A Defence of Liberty
Against Tyrants (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1579]
1989), p. 31.
71 Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, or The Law And The Prince
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 153.
Emphases added.
72 Ibid. p. 155.
73 Ibid. p. 145. The italics are in the original document.
74 John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetical Relation Of The Particular
Sufferings Of The Faithful Ministers And Professors Of The Church Of
Scotland, Since August 1660, (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd
[1665] 1845), p. 82.
75 Ibid.
76 Robert M. Kingdom, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion
in France 1555-1563 (Geneva: Librairie E. Droz, 1956), pp. 108,109.
Emphases added.
77 Ibid. pp. 111,112. Emphasis added.
78 Ibid. pp. 117, 124. Emphasis added.
79 Ibid. pp. 128,129.
80 John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetical Relation Of The Particular
Sufferings Of The Faithful Ministers And Professors Of The Church Of
Scotland, Since August 1660, (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd
[1665] 1845), p. 82.
81 Ibid.
82 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 25 July 1648, Session 14, ÒThe
Assemblies Answer to the Paper sent from the Committee of Estates of the
24 JulyÓ, p. 374.
83 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law And The Prince
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. xxi.
Emphases added.
84 Samuel Wylie, Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For
Magistracy And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis (Pottstown,
Pennsylvania: Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing [1803]
1995), pp. 51,52. The italics are in the original document.
85 Andrew Clarkson, Plain Reasons For Presbyterians Dissenting From
The Revolution Church In Scotland (no publisher cited, 1731), p. 262.
This is one of the best treatments on biblical presbyterianism as it was
believed and practiced by our reformed and covenanted forefathers of the
Second Reformation in Scotland (1638-1649).
86 Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed
(Geneva: John Crispin, 1558), p. 136. The spelling has been edited from
the original document.
87 Samuel Wylie, Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For
Magistracy And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis (Pottstown,
Pennsylvania: Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing [1803]
1995), pp. 59,60.
88 ÒThe Larger Catechism,Ó Question 135, Westminster Confession of
Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), pp.
217,218.
89 George Buchanan, De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue Concerning
The Rights Of The Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle
Publications, [1579] 1982),
p. 269.
90 For an extended treatment of Romans 13:1-7 defending the position
set forth in this book see James M. WillsonÕs Civil Government: An
Exposition of Romans 13:1-7 (1853).
91 David Steele, Notes on the Apocalypse (forthcoming from Covenanted
Reformed Presbyterian Publishing), p. 189-190. The italics are in the
original document. The bold are added for emphases.
92 Cf. The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting available
through Still Waters Revival Books.
93 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 27 July 1649, Session 27, ÒA
seasonable and necessary Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and
Imminent dangers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the
Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereofÓ, p. 460.
Emphases added.
94 The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From
the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 6 August 1649, Session
Ultimate, ÒA Brotherly Exhortation from the Generall Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, to their Brethren in EnglandÓ, pp. 474,475. Emphases
added.
95 Ibid. p. 475. Emphases added.
96 The Reformed Presbytery, The Auchensaugh Renovation of the
National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant, etc. (Still Waters
Revival Books Òrare bound photocopy reprintÓ, 1880 edition), p. 136.
97 Augustine, cited in St. Augustine, The Political Writings (Regnery
Gateway, 1962), pp. 29,30. Emphases added.
98 Chrysostom, cited in De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; or, The Rights Of The
Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications,
[1579]
1982), p. 269. Emphases added.
99 Theophylact, cited in Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 147.
Emphases added.
100 Richard L. Greaves, Theology & Revolution In The Scottish
Reformation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press,
1980),
p. 145. Emphases added.
101 Ibid. pp. 145,146. Emphases added.
102 Ibid. p. 146. Emphases added.
Still Waters Revival Books
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5
(Reformation resources at great discounts!) E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com (FREE BOOKS here too!)
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
Voice: (780) 450-3730
This book is also available in a hard copy edition which includes all
the
formatting and an additional twenty plus pages of information (see
below):
PRICE, GREG
Biblical Civil Government Versus the Beast; and, the Basis for Civil
Resistance (1996)
This is the best modern testimony for the biblical principles of civil
magistracy -- which were so prominent during the height of the second
Reformation -- that we have seen. Price documents the teachings of many
of the major Reformers (and some of the church fathers) and in an easy
reading manner simplifies what can at times become a very complex
subject. This particular Reformation message, proclaiming Christ's
Kingship
over the nations (and the practical outworking of the same), has been
buried from the view of the general public for some time now, but is once
again being brought to light in this very helpful introductory book. A
sobering appendix has been added (written by a friend of the covenanted
Reformation) which shows why it is unlawful for a Christian to swear any
oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. This appendix also
compares the points of difference between classic (or historic) Reformed
teaching and modern Reformed teaching regarding magistracy and religion.
Special attention is payed to the OPC, the PCA and the RPCNA and the
changes that these groups have made to second Reformation confessional
standards (concerning matters related to the civil magistrate).
Statements
by B.B. Warfield are also contrasted to the older Reformed views. You
won't find a better easy-to-read and easy to understand introduction to
this important topic -- a topic which impacts directly on every
Christian's
testimony for the crown rights of King Jesus!
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-65%=6.98
FOR FURTHER STUDY:
PRICE, GREG
Reformation Politics Versus the Beast (cassette, $1.99) An
excellent
summary of Price's latest book Biblical Civil Government Versus the
Beast; and, the Basis for Civil Resistance. Here Price lays out the
biblical
and historical basis for the most highly developed aspects of Reformation
thought regarding civil government. He explains the biblical view of
civil
magistracy and applies it to the present situation; showing why most
modern civil rulers are tyrants and thus should not given conscientious
submission (according to Romans 13:1-7). Price's list of how modern
rulers
habitually violate each of the ten commandments should prove
illuminating; as well as his citations from the searing indictments
against
wicked rulers given from famous Reformed leaders of the past. This book
also discusses tactics of Christian resistance, while answering the
question:
Should Christians hold office or vote in the present circumstances? This
highly controversial cassette will certainly seem shocking to those who
are
not familiar with Reformation thought on this topic -- but it is faithful
to
Scripture, the original confessions of the Reformation and the testimony
of
the covenanting martyrs (who gave their lives resisting the civil beast
and
proclaiming Christ's absolute Kinship over the nations).
PRICE, GREG
Objections to Covenanting Answered (cassette, $2.55) A powerful
example of why the teaching prevalent during the days of the height of
the
second Reformation brought international transformation to all areas
of
life -- including whole nations covenanting with Christ to uphold His
word
and law! This lecture also includes some of the most controversial
teaching (near the end of the tape) that you are likely to hear from any
living minister of Christ -- though Knox, Rutherford, Renwick and many
other covenanted Presbyterian ministers often put their lives on the line
for these very truths. These truths continue to be a point of standing
testimony in our day of ecumenical apostasy, theological declension, and
ecclesiastical and civil deformation. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me" (John 10:27) was never more true than
regarding the lost and buried attainments (of the covenanted Reformation)
being brought to light once again in our day through the preaching and
teaching of Greg Price.
WYLIE, SAMUEL B.
The Two Sons of Oil; or, the Faithful Witness for Magistracy and
Ministry upon a Scriptural Basis (1850 edition, reprinted 1995)
A Covenanter classic opening Revelation 11:3-4 and Zechariah 4:14. It has
been hailed as the "best presentation of the position of the Covenanter
Church that has been written." Noting that the "[t]ime has been, when the
whole body of Presbyterians, in Scotland, England, and Ireland,
unanimously subscribed" to these principles, "[f]or civil and
ecclesiastical
reformation" and that thousands bled and died for the glorious covenanted
cause of civil and ecclesiastical reformation; Wylie sets out to explain
and
defend "that cause. Not because it is an ancient cause; not because many
have sealed it with their blood; but, because," as he says, "I thought it
the
doctrine of the Bible, and the cause of Christ." This book explains how
to
tell if a government (especially a civil government) is faithful to
Christ and
thus to be obeyed for conscience's sake. It also gives direction
regarding
when and how to resist (and disassociate) yourself from governments
which get their power from "the beast." Moreover, this book gives clear
testimony as to what the Bible requires of civil magistrates, noting
"that
civil rulers should exercise their power in protecting and defending the
religion of Jesus." It also gives plain reasons why dissent from the
government of the United States (and other covenant breaking nations) is
the legitimate Scriptural pattern.
(Softcover)
$6.95-40%=4.17
WILLSON, JAMES M.
Civil Government: An Exposition of Romans 13:1-7 (1853)
Does the Bible give any qualifications for Christians to judge whether or
not a given civil magistrate is a lawful or unlawful "power" in the eyes
of
God? Does the very existence of a civil "power" (say Hitler's Nazi state)
make them a legitimate government according to Romans 13? Or, can a
civil government obtain its "power" from "the beast" — as some so-called
churches do? Should civil "authorities" be judged according to the secret
or
revealed will of God? This is a fine piece of exegetical work, well nigh
irrefutable, arguing that God has given clear revelation regarding the
lawfulness and unlawfulness of any given civil magistrate. Willson's
Scriptural conclusion will surprise many, anger not a few, and, we
believe,
be found honoring to God. Though the book is easy reading, these are deep
waters with implications that are among the most far reaching. Knox,
Rutherford and Gillespie would be proud!
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $29.95-80%=5.99
WILLSON, JAMES M.
The Subjection of Kings and Nations to Messiah (1820)
A lengthy sermon of 64 pages preached Dec. 6, 1819. Based on the text:
"All Kings shall bow down before him: all nations shall serve him" (Ps.
72:11). Maintains that this text refers to a commanded duty, concerning
Christ not Solomon, and should be translated "Let all kings bow down
before him: Let all nations serve him." Explains this national duty,
enquires
as to how it is to be nationally preformed, then proceeds to make
practical
application of the subject. Shows that nations have a duty, as nations,
to
bind themselves to Christ by covenant, to consecrate themselves to Him,
to
swear allegiance to Him (as their King and Lord), and to obey all His
holy
law! Furthermore, Willson maintains that it is a great sin for nations to
remain in rebellion against Christ by not performing these duties. He
also
demonstrates how and why a high-handed sin of this nature brings
corporate guilt upon the nation. Moreover, this sin provokes God to wrath
(as seen in an escalation of national calamities), until the day, barring
repentance, that the national "cup of wrath" overflows. Also contains
helpful direction regarding the individual's social responsibility as a
Christian in times of national corporate defection from Christ's crown
and
covenant (i.e in times exactly like those that we live in).
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $14.95-75%=3.74
PRICE, GREG
The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting
The material found in this bound photocopy addresses a forgotten and
neglected ordinance of God: social covenanting. God's people in times
of
repentance and thanksgiving, trial and blessing have been a covenanting
people. In the most pure times of ecclesiastical and civil reformation
throughout history, both church and state under the mediatorial rule of
Christ have by the grace of God bound themselves together by covenant to
promote and defend the true Christian religion. The first document
adopted by the Westminster Assembly was in fact, the Solemn League and
Covenant (1644). It united the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and
Ireland
in a covenanted reformation of both church and state in order to
preserve,
promote and defend the true Christian religion (as summarized in the
Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Directory
For Public Worship, and Form of Church Government), and in order to
expose and uproot all false teaching contrary to the Scripture and these
standards. Furthermore, it was not only the desire of the Westminster
Assembly to unite in covenant the three British kingdoms, but rather to
include in this covenanted reformation all of the Reformed Churches
throughout Europe. Consider the goal of the Assembly as summarized by
Hetherington: "There was one great, and even sublime idea, brought
somewhat indefinitely before the Westminster Assembly, which has not
yet been realized, the idea of a Protestant union throughout Christendom,
not merely for the purpose of counterbalancing Popery, but in order to
purify, strengthen, and unite all true Christian churches, so that with
combined energy and zeal they might go forth, in glad compliance with the
Redeemer's commands, teaching all nations, and preaching the everlasting
gospel to every creature under heaven. This truly magnificent, and also
truly Christian idea, seems to have originated in the mind of that
distinguished man, Alexander Henderson. It was suggested by him to the
Scottish commissioners, and by them partially brought before the English
Parliament, requesting them to direct the Assembly to write letters to
the
Protestant Churches in France, Holland, Switzerland, and other Reformed
Churches. . . . and along with these letters were sent copies of the
Solemn
League and Covenant, a document which might itself form the basis of such
a Protestant union. The deep thinking divines of the Netherlands
apprehended the idea, and in their answer, not only expressed their
approbation of the Covenant, but also desired to join in it with the
British
kingdoms. Nor did they content themselves with the mere expression of
approval and willingness to join. A letter was soon afterwards sent to
the
Assembly from the Hague, written by Duraeus (the celebrated John Dury),
offering to come to the Assembly, and containing a copy of a vow which he
had prepared and tendered to the distinguished Oxenstiern, chancellor of
Sweden, wherein he bound himself 'to prosecute a reconciliation between
Protestants in point of religion'. . . . [O]n one occasion Henderson
procured a
passport to go to Holland, most probably for the purpose of prosecuting
this grand idea. But the intrigues of politicians, the delays caused by
the
conduct of the Independents, and the narrow-minded Erastianism of the
English Parliament, all conspired to prevent the Assembly from entering
farther into that truly glorious Christian enterprise. Days of trouble
and
darkness came; persecution wore out the great men of that remarkable
period; pure and vital Christianity was stricken to the earth and
trampled
under foot. . ." (William Hetherington, History of the Westminster
Assembly of Divines , [Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books],
pp.
337-339). The material presented herein is commended to the reader with
the sincere prayer and confidence that God will again restore the Church
of
Jesus Christ to a glorious covenanted reformation--one that will even
surpass that one to which she had attained at the time of the Westminster
Assembly. However, when the Lord brings that future covenanted
reformation it will not be limited to only three kingdoms of the earth,
but
by the grace and power of Christ our King, it will be a covenanted
reformation that will encompass all of the nations of the earth (Ps.
2:6-12;
Is. 2:1-4; Mt. 28:1-20) and will bring to the church a visible unity and
uniformity that (unlike pleas for unity today) is firmly grounded upon
the
truth" (Greg Price, Preface). The material contained in this compilation
was
gathered together by the session of the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton/Prince George. Its 210 pages contain the following items, as
listed in this bibliography for social covenanting.
1. Samuel Rutherford, Due Right of Presbyteries , pp. 130-139
2. George Gillespie, The Works of George Gillespie, Vol. 2, pp. 71-88.
3. John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetic Relation , pp. 167-175, 181-
207.
4. David Scott, Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church,
pp. 14-90.
5. William Roberts, The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism , pp. 134-
152.
6. The Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defence of the Terms of
Communion , pp. 181-187.
7. The Reformed Presbytery, Act , Declaration and Testimony , pp. 11-
23.
8. The Reformed Presbytery, The Auchensaugh Renovation , pp. 115-
140.
9. The Church of Scotland (1639), The National Covenant of Scotland ,
pp.
345-354 in the Westminster Confession of Faith published by Free
Presbyterian Publications.
10. The Westminster Assembly (1644), The Solemn League and Covenant ,
pp. 355-360 in the Westminster Confession of Faith published by Free
Presbyterian Publications.
11. The Church of Scotland (1648), A Solemn Acknowledgement of Publick
Sins and Breaches of the Covenant , pp. 361-368 in the Westminster
Confession of Faith published by Free Presbyterian Publications.
(Rare bound photocopy) $22.95-70%=6.89
ROBERTS, WILLIAM L.
The Duty of Nations, in their National Capacity, to Acknowledge and
Support the True Religion (1853)
Excerpted from the Reformed Presbyterian Catechism below, this book
deals with the inescapable necessity, of the demand found in the Word of
God, for the Civil establishment of Christ and King and Lawgiver over
every nation on earth. If you are sick of the cease-fire with humanism,
set
forth by the syncretistic, Satanic and pragmatic pagan politicians of our
day, (those who bargain with votaries of Antichrist [the Pope], publicly
tolerate all manner of false religions (e.g. Islam) and idolatry, and
compose
their policy and draw their pretended authority from the beast [and not
the Word of God], this book is for you! For all pagan politics is summed
up
in the words of the Cameronian (Covenanter) political philosopher
Alexander Shields, as "rotting away under the destructive distempers of
detestable neutrality, loathsome lukewarmness, declining, and decaying in
corruptions, defections, divisions, distractions, confusions; and so
judicially
infatuated with darkness and delusions, that they forget and forego the
necessary testimony of the day" (A HIND LET LOOSE, 1797 edition, p. 20).
Pick up this book and begin the political walk in the "footsteps of the
flock," traveling the covenanting road of Reformation and Scripture (with
the magisterial Reformers of the past)!
(Rare bound photocopy) $5.95-70%=1.78
ROBERTS, WILLIAM L.
The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism (1853)
A manual of instruction, drawing from such notable authors as William
Symington and J.R. Willson, presenting "arguments and facts confirming
and illustrating the 'Distinctive Principles'" of the Reformed
Presbyterian
Church. Chapters deal with: "Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in general;"
Christ's exclusive Headship over the Church;" "The Supreme and Ultimate
Authority of the Word of God in the Church;" Civil Government, the Moral
Ordinance of God;" Christ's Headship over the Nations;" "The Subjection
of
the Nations to God and to Christ;" The Word, or Revealed Will of God, the
Supreme Law in the State;" "The Duty of Nations, in their National
Capacity,
to acknowledge and support the True Religion:" "The Spiritual
Independence of the Church of Christ:" "The Right and Duty of Dissent
from
an immoral Constitution of Civil Government;" "The Duty of Covenanting,
and the Permanent Obligations of Religious Covenants;" "The Application
of
these Principles to the Governments, where Reformed Presbyterians
reside, in the form of a Practical Testimony;" and finally "Application
of the
Testimony to the British Empire." A most important book, as we approach
(possibly) the end of the great apostasy and will be in need of preparing
for the dawning of the glorious millennial blessings to come; the days
prophesied in which the church "shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles,
and shalt suck the breast of kings" (Isa. 60:16).
(Rare bound photocopy) $29.95-70%=8.99
SCOTT, DAVID
Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
(1841)
This book is not designed to discuss "the (many-RB) doctrines which the
Reformed Presbyterian church holds in common will others," but is written
to set forth RP distinctives. It tackles its subject from three major
heads:
"Social Covenanting;" "The Dominion of Christ;" and "The Universal
Application of Scripture (civil as well as religious)." It shows that
while
these doctrines "are held by many, as abstract doctrines of divine truth,
they are not embodied in the testimony of any other Christian
denomination: nor made necessary to ministerial or Christian fellowship.
Although other individuals may hold these doctrine, it is a 'distinctive'
feature of the RPC to embody them in her testimony; and to make them
terms of communion." It also explains how these are the same distinctives
that were maintained "at the era of the reformation, (when) the
covenanted church of Scotland bore a distinguished testimony for all the
offices of Christ, as prophet, priest and king: and for the pure
doctrines,
worship, discipline, and government of the house of God." The author
states
that "the great object aimed at is to help forward the glorious triumph
of
the Messiah, so beautifully described in the 72nd Psalm. When 'all Kings
shall fall down before him; and all nations shall serve him.'"
(Rare bound photocopy) $49.95-80%=9.99
Back to swrb
home page