The two questions we want to consider this evening in our study are these. Why should a Christian not hold office and why should a Christian not vote in the present circumstances? Want to say at the very outset that it's not because the office of civil magistracy is sinful or wicked. Quite to the contrary, we read in the Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, these truths, beginning with the first section, and I'll read the second section of this chapter. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people for his own glory. and the public good and to this end have armed them with the power of the sword for the defense and encouragement of them that are good and for the punishment of evil doers. The second section. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called therein to. in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth. So for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. The third section as well. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word 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 affecting 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. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority. for conscience sake. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him, from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them and their dominions, or over any of their people, and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics. or upon any other pretense whatsoever. Now, in one short lesson, we will not have time to cover all that we may like to cover concerning the civil magistrate. But as I said, I would like to focus this evening upon those two questions. And in order to do so, I'm going to simply summarize general principles without going into a whole lot of detail concerning the civil magistrate. And these principles will help us perhaps to understand what is a lawful magistrate, what is not a lawful magistrate. And so we'll just identify these principles numerically beginning with number one, principles concerning the civil magistrate. Number one, The triune God is the supreme ruler of the universe. I think these initial principles will certainly not catch anybody by surprise. We find in Revelation 19, 6, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Which means, therefore, that all ecclesiastical, domestic, and civil power finds its origin in God. The second major point or principle, civil magistracy is a divine ordinance immediately derived from God as creator. In Romans 13, 1 and 2, Paul says, let 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 resisted the power resisted the ordinance of God. Still under that same point, but making a distinction here, ecclesiastical authority however, is a divine ordinance immediately derived from Christ as mediator. Civil magistracy is immediately derived from God as creator. Ecclesiastical ministry is a divine ordinance immediately derived from Christ as mediator. In Ephesians 4, 11 and 12, and he that is Christ 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 Christ. In other words, that point is simply saying that civil magistracy is founded in creation before the fall. And you say, how is that the case? Since we don't see Adam established as a governor, as a king, per se, since there was only Eve and himself present. Well, I submit to you that had Adam not fallen into sin, it seems unavoidable that there would have been a need for civil order. among a sinless human race. Although there would not have been the need for a sword among among sinless human beings, there would have been a need yet for order. For angels, though created without sin, were yet established according to a divinely ordered government from the very beginning of creation. For we find in Colossians 1.16, for by him, that is by Christ, were all things created that are in heaven, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. This not only refers to earthly powers, but to heavenly. invisible powers as well. By virtue of their creation, they were ordered according to a hierarchy. Angels, though sinless. No need of a sword, but yet order. You see, that's because God is a God of order. That is His very nature, to be orderly. And we find after the fall that Angels, wicked angels, certainly are ordered according to a hierarchy. Paul says in Ephesians 6, 12, 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 places. And that's true of holy angels as well, even now, in Daniel 10, 13. It says, but lo, Michael, one of the chief princes came to help me. And we find these various degrees of of angels as well order amongst the elect angels. And so, again, I submit that, therefore, civil magistracy as a divine ordinance is founded upon creation. from the very beginning. Whereas, again, ecclesiastical ministry is directly and immediately derived from Christ as mediator. Ministry came into being after the fall, as a result of the fall, when the church came into being under the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. The third main point. Civil magistracy is the minister of God to be for good, Romans 13.4 teaches. Hence we might say civil government must serve God according to his moral law. If it is a minister of God to be for good, it must serve God according to his moral law and it must serve the people for their good. And by what standard do we measure good in either case? According to God's moral law. What other standard can there be by which you would measure what is good or not good? But by that standard. It can be God's moral law imprinted in the conscience of man that is called the law of nature. That was actually imprinted, God's moral law that was imprinted in the conscience of Adam, certainly been marred and defaced since the fall, but there still is a remnant of that moral law upon the conscience of man today by nature. But it's especially and fully and completely given to us in the scripture, in the Decalogue, in the Ten Commandments, God's moral law. And so we would just simply say that it is not merely that civil magistracy should be the minister of God to thee for good, but rather that civil magistrate is, Paul says, is the minister of God to thee for good. That's what Paul calls civil magistracy. And so if it does not serve this end, then according to Paul, it is not the divine ordinance of civil magistracy. If it doesn't serve those ends, it is not the divine ordinance of civil magistry. Proverbs 16.12 says, for the throne is established by righteousness. The fourth main point. The civil government is founded upon God as mediator. It is administered by Christ. I'm sorry. Though civil government is founded upon God as creator, it is administered by Christ as mediator. And that's simply because God has put all things under the feet of Christ, so that Christ, as mediatorial head, governs all things. Whether in heaven, upon earth, he governs all things to the benefit of the Church. That's what Ephesians 1.22 says. And certainly included in the all things there that God has given to Christ for the benefit of the church is civil magistracy to administer that. And we find in Isaiah 49.23, And 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 feet. And we find in many other passages how historically in redemptive history God used civil magistrates to promote reformation amongst the church. We find out in church history subsequent to the completion of the canon of scripture the same thing. God has promoted his work in this world through civil magistracy. Fifth main point. Civil magistracy is the ordinance of God and the minister of God to be for good by two means. First of all, by means of institution. By means of institution and secondly, by means of constitution. Very briefly. Institution refers to the civil magistrate meeting the qualifications of civil magistracy that is found in God's moral law. In other words, in order to have a lawful civil magistrate, he must, again, we've alluded to this earlier, but he must meet those qualifications for a civil magistrate that are found in God's moral law. As we read in the Confession, that doesn't necessarily mean that he must be a Christian. Certainly a Christian will be able to fulfill the moral law of God to a much higher degree than a non-Christian will. But even a non-Christian, even a pagan or a heathen, one who does not subscribe to the Christian faith per se, yet can serve God by ruling according to God's moral law as far as justice that is meted out to the people. And he can do so by not subverting the true religion as well, by not overturning the true religion that God has established. He may himself not be a professed believer of it, but he can yet promote it, even as we see in the case of Cyrus and some of the kings that we find in the Old Testament whom God used in various ways to promote the true religion. So institution, that's the first means by which a civil magistrate is the ordinance of God or the minister of God to be for good. The second means is by means of constitution, which means simply that for a civil magistrate to be lawful, he must have the consent of his people. Usually that consent is expressed by way of a covenant between the king, the magistrate and his people. And after that, they invest authority in this magistrate. We find many examples, I think, for both of these, but let me just biblically from the scripture give you for the institution, meeting the qualifications of civil magistracy as found in the moral law of God. Listen to these references in 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. Second, Samuel 23 verses two and three. The Spirit of the Lord, David says, spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the rock of Israel spoke to me. He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. In the truest sense, obviously, a heathen or a non-Christian cannot rule in the fear of God, and yet, one can, even as a non-Christian, have, though not a true sense of the fear of God, can have a sense of God being great and mighty and this type of thing. And so, you may not measure up as a non-Christian to that qualification as a Christian does, but nevertheless will have respect, as we find again in the case of Cyrus, for the living God. Job 34.17 says, Shall even he that hateth right govern?" Rhetorical question demanding, of course not. God forbid that someone who hates what's right, a tyrant, should govern. Psalm 94.20, shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, that is with God, which frameth mischief by a law? Of course not. Proverbs 16, 12, it is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness for the throne is established by righteousness. And then in Romans 13, verses three and four, we find these words 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." Here, Paul defines what is a lawful civil magistrate. He is one who is a terror. to evil works, not a terror to good works. He is one who executes wrath upon him who does evil. He doesn't punish those who do good. That's the kind of qualification that Paul uses when he is describing a civil magistrate in Romans 13. Those who do not fulfill those qualifications are not instituted as lawful civil magistrates. Now, there's much that we could go into detail to cite many, many historical persons and creeds to substantiate this. But in the interest of time, we're going to have to pass over these at this time. Maybe subsequently another study will be able to go through these much more in detail. What about constitution as far as securing the consent of the people and covenanting with the people and as a result of that covenant being invested with lawful authority from God through the people and to the magistrate? Where do we find that taught in the scriptures? Well, in Deuteronomy 17, verses 14 and 15, God says, actually Moses is speaking, When thou art come into 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. It certainly implies that the people had something to say about who their king would be. I will set a king over me. Judges 8.22. says, Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us. Rule thou over us. Judges nine, six. And all the men of Shechem gathered together in all the house of Milo and went and made a Bimelech king. Judges eleven, eleven. Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead And the people made him head and captain over them. You see how in all of these passages, and we have a few more, the people have a responsibility to put the magistrate over them. And implied in that, and there's one very explicit reference implied in that, is that when they put someone over them, that there is a covenant that's made between the king and the people, and the people and the king. 1 Samuel 11.15 And all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. 1 Chronicles 12.38 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. It was not only the fact that God had called him to be king and had been anointed by Samuel, but it also was needed that the people recognize and invest him with that authority and say, we want you to rule over us. The same is true within the church as well. People, men, simply can't be imposed upon a congregation. They must be men who have the consent and approval of the people that they're ruling over. That is taught in the scripture. 2 Samuel 16.18, 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." A couple more. 2 Kings 14.21, "...and all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king." And then finally, 2 Chronicles 23.3, "...and all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God." So, civil magistrate is recognized and acknowledged to be the ordinance of God and the minister of God to thee for good by means of institution and constitution. Number six. Subjection for conscience sake, which is what Romans chapter 13 teaches, that we are to be subject for conscience sake to the civil magistrate, subjection for conscience sake, tribute, fear, and honors wholeheartedly due to civil magistracy that can be identified as the minister of God to thee for good. Again, this alone is the ordinance of God. And so it's a flagrant violation of God's moral law not to give Subjection to, honor and obedience to a lawful civil magistrate. That is to resist God himself, to resist his lawful magistrate. And none of us want to be in that situation where we are resisting God. When we talk about submitting to the civil magistrate, the lawful civil magistrate for conscience sake, That certainly implies that the civil magistracy in question is approved by God's moral law, because you can only submit with your conscience to that which is morally approved, that which meets the requirements of God's moral law. Number seven, the ordinance of God is not equivalent to every authority that God in his providence places upon a throne. In other words, every single person that happens to be upon a throne is not necessarily the ordinance of God. 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, not by his providence, that civil magistrate is instituted. Therefore, it must be maintained that the ordinance of God is determined by the moral and revealed will of God. If we don't make any distinction between civil magistrates who simply rule by God's providence, as opposed to civil magistrates who rule by His revealed will, we're going to find ourselves in a lot of problems here. Just listen. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of God, preceptive will of God means the will of God, God's moral will, God's moral law. If we do not make a distinction between God's preceptive will or moral will that's found in his word, and between the providential will of God, then providence, listen closely, providence then is equally in all respects the rule of duty as much as the precept. By that we simply mean that if God's providence determines who are lawful magistrates and not his moral law, then everything that happens in the world, not simply with the civil magistrate, everything that happens in the world then is what God approves of. Because everything happens by God's providence. How do we distinguish what is right from what is wrong? If we are simply saying that whatever occurs in God's providence is what is approved and what is right. We can make no distinction. It is only the moral law of God. It is only his precepts that tell us what is right and wrong. We don't determine God's will, God's moral will from providence. We can't. With regard to the civil magistrate, then no matter how evil a civil magistrate becomes, he must be acknowledged to be the ordinance of God and the minister of God to be for good, if, in fact, there is no distinction between God's providential will and God's moral will. If there is no distinction, furthermore, if there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive or moral will of God and the providential will of God, then providence must express God's approval and institution in civil government as much as his moral will. And then one must conclude that anything God states in his moral law concerning the civil government is merely a suggestion. See, if God's moral law doesn't really tell a civil magistrate how he must rule, and that we can call any person, whether he's a tyrant who murders all of his people, if we can call him a lawful civil magistrate, then God's moral law is just a suggestion to him. It doesn't actually tell him what is required of him. Furthermore, 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 the ministers of God to thee for good, and not the murderer or thief who usurps the place of a father's head in his family." Why wouldn't we recognize if somebody came into your family and said, I'm going to murder the head of this family, and I'm going to be the head of this family? Why wouldn't we recognize that person to be the head? Because in God's providence, if someone murders me, And he assumes that particular place. Why wouldn't we recognize him as such? Or in the church. Somebody just usurps the place of the elders of the church. Because they actually possess the throne of authority, the scepter, within a church or family or state, does that make them a lawful authority? Of course not. But if you don't make a distinction between God's providence and God's moral will, you'd have to say whoever assumes the place of authority is the one that we recognize as being the lawful head of the state. A few more distinctions here very quickly, because this is a very important point, then we'll move on. If in fact we are to acknowledge Whomever may sit upon a throne is the ordinance of God, merely because he has gained the scepter to the throne in God's providence. Then we must acknowledge the beast of revelation represents tyrannical Rome and all antichrist civil governments. We must recognize that power who actually, according to revelation, says receives his power from Satan. as the minister of God to thee for good, even though he is worshipped by all those who dwell on the earth in Revelation 13.4, even though he blasphemes God in Revelation 13.6, and even though he murders and persecutes God's people. Furthermore, we must in all consistency acknowledge Satan, the one who gives the beast his power and who is designated the prince of this world. in John 12, 31, to be the minister of God to thee for good as well. Now, does that make sense to you? See, this position leads to conclusions that we can't possibly accept. Such a fallacious view of civil magistrate would justify the very sin of resistance against a lawful civil government which Paul forbids. Paul forbids, he says, whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. This would actually, again, justify resistance, because if you could resist even a lawful ruler and simply gain control, then you would be the lawful ruler, no matter what you did to get to that place. It would justify that as long as you actually possessed the scepter. But that's not what Paul is trying to teach us. He's saying it is sinful to resist a lawful authority. On this erroneous view of civil magistracy, it could just as well forbid and renounce all resistance under any condition against the civil magistrate that is in power and in doing so denounce all revolutions against tyranny as wicked, whether they be the revolutions of the righteous judges that we find in the scripture. We find many examples of revolutions of resisting tyranny in the word of God. So it would say all of those were wrong because you can't resist whoever is in power. Furthermore, it would denounce all revolutions against tyranny in history, as in the case of the Dutch under William of Orange, who resisted the Spaniards, the Romish Spaniards, or the resistance of Scotland against the tyranny of Charles I, or even the U.S. War for Independence against the tyranny of the King of England, or even resistance of a Christian against Satan who gives civil power to the beast to rule. So it leads to all kinds of problems, this particular view, if we do not distinguish between those who rule by God's providence and those who rule by God's moral will, law. The eighth point. Tyrants who claim authority to rule over a kingdom cannot receive the conscientious subjection of Christians. Tyrants who claim authority to rule, if they are tyrants, if they are not lawful magistrates, we cannot, as Christians, give to them conscientious subjection. As we've already said, Christians can no more submit for conscience sake to a tyrant who sits upon the throne by God's providence, not by his moral will, than they can submit for conscience sake to the beast, or to Satan for that matter, who both rule by God's providential will. As a matter of fact, tyrants ought to be actively resisted for conscience sake. by the following means. Not granting to them conscientious objection. That's active resistance. When we say in our own heart, in our own mind, I will not submit myself out of conscience. It doesn't mean I won't submit my body to, and we'll talk about this briefly, that I won't submit my body to obeying certain lawful commands and this type of thing. But I won't submit my conscience to this throne that's established on wickedness and unrighteousness. I cannot do that. Furthermore, Christians with regard to tyrants must actively resist by not acknowledging them to be the ordinance of God. Not honoring them as the minister of God to thee for good. Disobeying all of 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 The civil magistrate uses violence against God's people. God's people can in turn resist and defend their lives by using violence in return. And that again is found throughout the scripture and throughout church history. There are many biblical examples. And again, I have to skip over historical examples. I have to skip over. So we get to the briefly the two questions we want to consider. Number nine, we're coming to the to the questions here in just a moment there. Therefore, it is affirmed that the habitual tyrant qualified is the habitual tyrant who flagrantly violates The moral law of God is not the ordinance of God, is not the minister of God to thee for good, but rather the ordinance of God and the minister of God to thee for good is he who upholds God's moral law. We've said that in many different ways, but the new point that I'm establishing here is that the habitual tyrant who flagrantly violates the moral law of God is not God's ordinance. Listen to this quote by Alexander Shields in Hind Let Loose. He says, It is not any one or two acts contrary to the royal covenant or office that doth denude or strip 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, that is, a tyrant in act, the first does not cease to be a king. But on the other hand, as everything will not make a magistrate a tyrant, so nothing will make a tyrant by habit a magistrate. A habitual tyrant cannot be a magistrate, even though a lawful magistrate, like David, might commit some heinous sins that did not strip him of his lawful authority, but a habitual, continual, flagrant violation of God's moral law denudes or strips a civil magistrate of his lawful authority. Number nine. It is the moral duty of all Christians to resist civil governments which rule by tyranny and establish their thrones by wickedness. This is again, you'll find some of these points similar to what we said before, but there is something new here. The habitual tyranny of unlawful civil governments against God's moral law and against his Christ is manifested in their framing mischief by law. And the following, and I'll list just a few, the following are just a few of the many notorious and habitual violations of God's moral law, which are framed and protected by law within most nations throughout the world today. And I'll just basically go through the Ten Commandments. First of all, legal protection of idolatry and false worship within a nation that has been enlightened by the gospel, together with the refusal to establish the true reformed religion as the only established religion within that nation. Second, refusal to affirm in constitutional documents that God's moral law is the supreme law of the land, within a nation enlightened by the gospel, together with the legal declaration of an immoral constitution, that it, the immoral constitution, rather, is the supreme law of the land. Thirdly, Refusal to nationally acknowledge Jesus Christ as the supreme ruler of the nation, whom all magistrates are obligated to kiss, according to Psalm 212, who are obligated to kiss in their official functions and capacity. It's not an option for Even there, it specifically refers to magistrates outside of Judaism at that particular time, outside of the religion of the Old Testament. They're obligated to kiss the sun. Speaking beyond the Old Testament era into the New Covenant era, all magistrates are obligated to kiss the sun, to worship, to honor him. That's not an option. Those cover basically, those that I just mentioned, those three cover the first two commandments of the Ten Commandments. Now we move on. The third commandment, legal protection of public blasphemy against the name of the Lord in all forms of media. Used to be that there were laws on the books in which you couldn't do that. No longer the case. Fourth, refusal to prohibit profaning of the Lord's Day by all unnecessary work. Rather, there is, to the opposite extreme, the legal protection of all profaning of the Lord's Day. The fifth commandment, tyranny exercised over families in prohibiting corporal discipline. It's coming. It's coming that it will be a law established within the nation. Now it tends to be applied at various court levels and this type of thing. And depending upon the measure, whether the court simply believes that there was abuse or not. But there is coming a day where everything, I believe, will be the same, judged according to the same law, where it would be illegal to discipline using the rod within a nation. But it's even now happening in courts throughout the country. And also in violation of the Fifth Commandment, requiring government certification in order to homeschool. It's a violation of God's moral law to require government certification in this immoral situation that an immoral government would tell a family how they ought to educate their children. Sixth commandment, legal endorsement of the slaughter and murder of unborn children. Abortion on demand and even cases of abortion for sex or gender distinctions, these types of things. The seventh commandment, legal protection of gross immorality, sexual perversion, and heinous pornography in every way. And again, sodomy and the sodomites claiming their so-called civil rights to practice their their sins and their crimes. This is legally protected. The 8th commandment, habitual theft, habitual theft through unjust and excessive taxes and through inflated paper currency. That's simply legalized theft on the part of the government. And finally, the 9th commandment, The reason we don't mention the 10th commandment is because dealing with lust and covetousness, that's a sin, but it's not a crime that the civil magistrate can judge. But the 9th, we consider habitual covenant breaking. Habitual covenant breaking. And this has to do with the fact that particularly in this nation of Canada, the United States, and all nations that descend from Great Britain, from either Ireland, England, or Scotland, are bound by the solemn legion covenant. Because, as we find in the Westminster Assembly, they said that all His Majesty's dominions are bound by the solemn legion covenant. They recognized that to be the case. Whether it was Descendants that were presently in existence or descendants that would subsequently come into existence, all descendants of those nations are bound by the solemn league and covenant. And so, again, habitual covenant breaking. Again, we don't have time to go into all the reasons why we've covered most of those in past studies. The tenth major point. Lawful resistance, and I'm not talking about revolutionary anarchy, but lawful resistance against habitual tyrants is the duty of all Christians. We've talked about what that lawful resistance will mean very briefly. We come then These are the two items that we have not covered. That a Christian, as far as his active resistance against an unlawful civil magistrate, that he himself cannot take an oath of allegiance to an immoral national constitution himself. First of all, he cannot take an oath of allegiance to an immoral national constitution. If that immoral, and this would be the definition of an immoral national constitution, if that constitution protects and defends habitual and flagrant violation of God's moral law. If it protects and defends habitual, continual, and flagrant violation of God's moral law, it is an immoral constitution. And it cannot be defended by oaths, nor can allegiance in any way be given to it on the part of the Christian. The Westminster Confession of Faith makes it exceedingly clear that to take an oath of allegiance to a constitution which protects and defends idolatry and immorality and all the other flagrant violations that we mentioned in the law of God, a Christian cannot take an oath to such a constitution, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In chapter 22 of the Confession of Faith, section 1, it says, A lawful oath is a part of religious worship. If you take an oath, it 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, listen, to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth. If it's an immoral constitution, how can he take an oath of allegiance to an immoral constitution? You can only take an oath to that which is true, not to that which is false. The third section in chapter 22 of the Confession of Faith says this, Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch, that is to affirm, 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 to perform. You can't do that to an immoral constitution that protects and defends all of these flagrant, habitual violations of God's moral law. And finally, in Section 4, Chapter 22, of the Confession of Faith, it says, 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. Samuel Wiley, a Reformed Presbyterian minister of the 19th century, I think accurately sized up the glaring inconsistency with most Reformed and Presbyterian churches when he made this observation. He says, 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, etc., while all 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 idolatry from the land. That's what our creed, the Westminster Larger Catechism, calls us to do. That in our various stations and callings, we're required to remove every monument of idolatry. And yet, how can we swear allegiance to the epitome of a monument of idolatry being a national constitution that supports idolatry, defends it, protects it? Well, since a Christian cannot take an oath of allegiance to an immoral national constitution, consequences must necessarily follow. And we're coming to the close of our study here. First of all, 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 the civil magistrate as being the ordinance of God, if conscientious subjection and an oath of allegiance is not required of them. Listen closely so that you see this distinction. In fact, if the Christian were not required to take an oath of allegiance to an immoral civil government or to its constitution, 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, Nehemiah, and others. You see, it's the oath that binds that person to that immoral civil government or to that immoral national constitution that forbids him, that keeps him, precludes him from being able to serve in any capacity within that government. If that's not required of him, if he's simply required to be faithful in his job and vocation, which would mean to be faithful for a Christian to the word of God, then he could serve within a government that's immoral, but he could become an agent of light, of salt, in bringing reformation to that particular nation through parliamentary procedure. Listen to what John Cunningham, a Reformed Presbyterian minister from the last century, had to say concerning the immoral British Constitution in 1843. He said this, 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 oath or otherwise we will not recognize your authority as of God. We will cooperate 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 lead to 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 do it. The second consequence, and we'll be ending here, the second consequence that must naturally follow from a Christian's refusal to violate God's moral law by taking an oath of allegiance to an immoral national constitution is that he will not consent to or participate in the sins of others by voting for and electing people to civil office who will have to take that same unlawful oath to an immoral national constitution. Samuel Wiley, again a reformed Presbyterian minister from the last century in the United States, says this, Again, listen very closely. Those who directly or indirectly consent to the evil deeds of others are partakers in their criminality. Psalm 50 verse 18 says, When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentest with him, which God, and Wiley continues, which God severely reprehends. In other words, when, pause for a moment, Wiley is quoting Psalm 50, 18, by saying, when you saw this fellow rob this house next door, and you didn't say anything about it, you consented and participated in that particular act of criminality, in that theft. You were an accomplice because you did not voice your opposition, you did not resist in some way that thief. Wiley continues, if therefore the Constitution be essentially at war with the religion of Jesus and homologation, that is an approval or ratification of it is striking hands with his enemies. No oath of allegiance, therefore, can we swear because we believe the Constitution to be contrary to the moral law. and our covenant engagements. Further, we cannot elect public functionaries. These are men elected to serve as civil magistrates. 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, that is by the elected, is virtually done by the former, the elector, through his representative organ. He must also be, the one who's elected, says he must also be introduced to office by an oath, homologating or approving and ratifying, therefore, the constitution. And then this last sentence, this is the clincher. Whatever therefore we cannot do ourselves on account of its immorality, we ought not to employ others to perform, to perform for us. If we cannot swear allegiance or take an oath to a constitution, we cannot put others in a position by voting for them of swearing allegiance to or taking an oath to an immoral constitution. And so, we'll stop there this evening and see if you have any questions that have arisen. throughout the discussion, the lecture tonight. Is our present government tyranny now? I mean, the present prime minister was elected by lawful means, but is he now a tyrant or is our government now a tyrant because they are judicial centers? Because what? They are judicial centers and covenant breakers. But we're all sinners, so it's not on that basis. Any magistrate is going to not be perfect. So it's on the basis of their being habitual, flagrant violators of God's moral law publicly in their official capacity and actions that is the basis for tyranny. I was referring to all your points in point 9. Yeah, and I would say that there is such a thing as legalized tyrants. In other words, tyrants who are in power because people have put them there. In other words, they've not usurped the throne by coming in as a tyrant and murdering all these people and that type of thing. But there is a legalized tyrant, those who have been voted into office and that type of thing. Now, in that kind of a situation, we would certainly say that it's much better to continue to obey the good laws that are in place, not to promote violent revolution for the sake of simply removing any kind of tyranny when there's nothing to take its place. when there's no likely chance that it would be successful. And furthermore, the types of things that we find in the scripture and in history, when violent revolution is employed, it is employed because the magistrate first initiates it against God's people, and then as a means of self-defense, the people defend themselves and overthrow the tyranny by that means. That was the case, for example, in the various wars throughout Europe where the reformed churches overthrew the tyranny of Catholic, Popish magistrates. They were imposing their religion upon the people and if they did not follow the sanction of the civil magistrate, to attend mass and all the idolatries, then civil sanctions were brought against the people for not doing so. Eventually it did lead to actual shedding of blood on the part of Protestants who would not give in to the Popish demands, which again eventually led to revolution by means of force on the part of reformed on churches and Christians in overthrowing the tyranny of those Pokish states. Fred? I was just thinking in regard to that last statement, what about the violence of abortion? How would that fit in? Well, certainly we can see that the civil magistrate, and he's certainly culpable for permitting abortion. But in this particular case, it's legally protected and defended, and so he's culpable. That is tyranny. But it is the mother that is actually bringing, in this case, bringing the child to be murdered. Whereas in a more active sense, where the civil magistrate, in the cases we find in history and I think in the scripture, takes it upon himself to persecute, to murder, to kill, usually for the sake of the faith, the true faith, someone defending and standing upon of the true reformed religion. Those seem to be again the cases in which particular the now there may have been other other people lumped into that particular category as in various historical examples other than just true reformed Christians. But there is a more active type of violence promoted by the by the civil magistrate it seems in those cases. So if we were in a case like China where they say if you have more than one child, the government comes and forces you to have an abortion, would that change the situation? I think so. That's a good distinction. If the government were to limit and were to themselves come into the family and remove the mother who is pregnant, or to take the child who has been recently born, and to murder the child, that would put us in a completely different situation, I think, as far as the active violence on the part of the civil magistrate. As compared now, he's certainly culpable. He's practicing tyranny by defending and protecting the right of people to murder children, but it would be an even more flagrant violation of that particular commandment for him to take an active role in murdering children. Murray, this oath of allegiance that you're talking about to a false constitution, can it be other than in a verbal or oral way? Can it be in a written form? Oh, certainly. Yeah. Yeah. Whether you take whether you sign your name and subscribe to a to a constitution or whether you orally raise your hand and take an oath to the Constitution, it makes no difference. Can you separate the government from the Constitution? Not if the government is ruled by that Constitution, you can't. Yes, were you going to ask a follow-up question? Any written contract, signatures required that is a covenant? Any contract that requires signatures is a covenant. Entering in with the government? Yeah, if you're giving allegiance to that government, then you have taken, it is an oath of allegiance if that's the nature of the oath you're taking. But not a business contract? Not a business contract, no. No, we're talking about to a a national constitution. It's not it's not immoral unless there is something specifically stated within a contract that is in and of itself immoral. It's not immoral to enter into business contracts. That's not the case. No. Well, the reason I was sort of leading up with this series of questions is the fact that whenever we do our taxes, there's I mean, we're not going out and avowedly, you know, swearing to the Constitution. But is not the fact that we, when the income tax rolls around and we all sign these forms swearing that this is true, that this is stated, is that in a form taking an oath of allegiance to the Constitution? It's a good, yeah, it's a good question. The question having to do with the paying of taxes, is that some type of oath of allegiance because we do sign our names stating that what we've written upon the document is true. And that would, again, I think be a question that many ask concerning Christ. The objection is offered, does not Christ confirm the lawful authority of the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor, in effect, when he says, render therefore into Caesar the things which are Caesar's and then to God the things that are God's in Matthew 22, 21. And we'd simply respond to that question, which leads up to what you've asked. Try and get them both here, Marie. The question that was proposed to Christ was proposed by actually his enemies, the enemies of Christ, the Pharisees, and the Herodians. And they did so in order to entangle him, to entrap him. That was their motive. They did not ask a sincere and honest question. It was one of those kinds of questions. If he said, it is lawful to give to Caesar, then the Pharisees would jump all over him and say, your allegiance lies with Rome, and Rome has subjugated our land, and et cetera, et cetera. no it is not lawful to give to Caesar, then the Herodians would have jumped all over him and said that he had renounced Caesar as being king and this type of thing. So it was one of those kinds of questions that would involve him with either direction he went, it would have involved him in being in a position where The people would have, in some way, slandered him. The Lord did perceive their wickedness and essentially gave them a non-answer to their question. He outwitted them, in other words. Since it was not an honest question in the first place, Christ did not play into their trap by answering the question. In fact, they could not take hold of his words before the people. That's a quote from Luke 20, verse 26. After he gave the answer, they still didn't know what the answer to the question was. They didn't know what he had said. They didn't know which side of the issue he came down on. That's what it says. They could not take hold of his words before the people. They couldn't use them against him. Even they could not figure out what he had said about the issue of paying tribute to Caesar. Thus, if the enemies of Christ couldn't pin him to an answer one way or the other, though they would have loved to have done so, neither can anyone 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. You remember in the case of the woman caught in adultery. He said, you who are without sin cast the first stone. Even if Christ did endorse the paying of tribute to Caesar, this leads up to your question, even if he did do so, the paying of tribute to Caesar is not an oath of allegiance paid to Caesar, nor a declaration concerning the lawfulness of Caesar's authority. For tribute exacted by an unlawful government is simply extortion required by a thief who threatens to take all of your property if you don't pay him part of your property. Which one are you going to take? You want him to take it all? You're going to give him a little bit to appease him for the time being. Furthermore, even foreigners and aliens within a nation pay taxes. I'm not a citizen of this country. but I have to pay taxes. I certainly don't have any allegiance to this country at all, but I have to pay taxes if I'm going to stay here and not be chased out. Well, I do so because I want to minister here, but that doesn't mean there's certainly no allegiance indicated by my paying taxes. Thus payment of taxes, to answer your question, is not an oath of allegiance. Not necessarily in the case of a lawful magistrate. It is an oath. It does indicate that you do give allegiance to. But not in the case of an unlawful magistrate. Does not necessarily mean that at all. They know my question. Also, I just want to ask. You gave some points in number eight as to our duty and how to resist. Are you going to expand upon that more, like in defying our present governments and more broadly? Was there something that I said that you wanted expanded? Any one of those in particular? I guess I was just looking for more It's in an outline form and I do have a lot more material on it, but if you have a specific question about it, I'll try and answer it, but otherwise it would just take quite a long time to answer the general question. By not acknowledging their, the first one I want to point to, must actively resist by not acknowledging their false authority. Is that something we would just all write to the prime minister and say, you're only obeying the good laws and we think you're just minding time? Well, it would involve in our conscience and in our communication with people where that issue came up and as a testimony to the truth. that we would not acknowledge him as having lawful authority in our lives or over a nation or that type of thing. We would, again, I think the way in which it would come to the attention of the civil magistrate is probably as a church that we would declare, just simply declare that that was the case as a testimony. have a public testimony to that effect, that this is not a legitimate, lawful government for these reasons, and call the civil government to repent of its sins in that kind of a situation. Okay, an example, biblical example and a historical example of Christians who did not recognize the lawful authority of the civil magistrate who was in power. Jehoiada in Second Chronicles 23, 12 through 15 did not subject himself for conscience sake to the tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death somewhere around seven years or a few years after. She had been reigning sometime, it doesn't specifically state how long she had reigned, but sometime after she had assumed the throne by killing all the royal seed except for Joash. And at the right time, when Joash was seven years of age, he was brought forward and Athaliah came and saw Joash there and she cried out treason. That's what most people would cry out against. The position I've presented today, they'd say treason. Well, that's what she accused them of doing, treason. And yet, she was taken out and slain as a tyrant. A historical example... I've got several. It's kind of hard to... picked maybe the best one. Well, I'll give you I'll give you a couple. First one by by Knox, John Knox. He says in in his summary of the proposed second blast of the trumpet, He says, neither can oath nor promise find any such people to obey and maintain tyrants against God and against His truth known. But if either rationally they have promoted any manifest wicked person, or yet ignorantly have chosen such a one as after declareth himself unworthy of regiment, that is, unworthy of government, above the people of God, and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors, must justly Most justly may the same men depose and punish him that unadvisedly before they did nominate, appoint, and elect. That's Knox. And then John Brown of Womfrey in his Apologetic Relation says this. This is more of an extended quote, but listen, this is quite a good quote, I think. There is a great difference to be put betwixt actual disobeying of, rebelling against, and violently with force of arms resisting the lawful magistrates doing his duty and commanding just things, warranted by laws of God and the land. And on the other hand, 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 in Romans 13, where the apostle is speaking of the civil magistrate doing his duty, and in his place is God's 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 tyrannize. He is not God's vicegerent when he playeth the tyrant, and therefore he may be resisted and opposed without any violence done to the office or the 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 evildoers, but on the contrary, they are terror to good works. And therefore that place, Romans 13, cannot be understood of tyrants. It is a true and a worthy saying, a famous Mr. Knox in his history of Scotland. Book two, page 141. Quote, there is a great difference between the authority which is God's ordinance and the persons of those who are placed in authority. The authority and God's 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 thing." End of quote. And then this last sentence from John Brown. Tyranny is one thing, and the office of the king is another thing. So, many examples. If you are interested, There is a new publication out called Biblical Civil Government versus the Beast, which yours truly has just finished. And if you're interested in pursuing this particular little advertisement, if you're interested in pursuing this in greater detail, you are certainly welcome to get a copy through Stillwater Survival Books. OK, one more question. Oh, OK. Make make them quick, Rich. Public civil toleration of false religion, say, like the present toleration of Islam or Roman Catholicism or many other false religions in the land, would you call it an act of curing? Yeah, the question is, is the toleration of false religions, whether of atheism or Islam or Judaism, or Buddhism, or any other false religion, Roman Catholicism, is that tyranny? And the answer is yes, it is tyranny, because God never gives a civil right to a nation to establish a moral wrong. there is never a duty or a right of a civil government to establish that which is contrary to the will of God and to the moral will of God and these are clearly contrary to God's revealed will and so that is tyranny because in tolerating false religion it can't help but undermine the true religion the spread of the true religion that's pluralism that is to compromise the fact that Jesus is to be kissed in the true religion by the magistrate. But if the civil magistrate is not only kissing Jesus, but kissing Buddha and kissing Muhammad and kissing naturalism and atheism and everything else, that is contrary to the will of God and cannot be tolerated. That's tyranny, yes. You noted that the position you put forth is often called treason, but isn't it true that those that recognize a kind of lawful civil magistrate are actually treasonous against Christ? Yeah, it's not the issue when those who hold the position of not honoring a tyrant as a legitimate or lawful civil magistrate, though they may be accused of treason, can it not be justly said that those who do acknowledge an unlawful civil magistrate who does not kiss the sun, that they have actually themselves become guilty of treason, because we are again duty-bound to acknowledge magistrates that do kiss the sun. And when magistrates kiss other religions, false religions, is treasonous. That's tyranny. Thank you for your questions. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. You are welcome to make copies and give them to those in need. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available. free of charge. containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, tapes, and videos at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email at swrb at swrb.com, by phone at 780-450-4255, 3730, by fax at 780-468-1096, or by mail at 4710-37A, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L 3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Kelvin in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devise. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God, by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind. As though he had said That men assume too much wisdom, When they devise what he never required, Nay, what he never knew.