We again read Psalm 78 and verse 5, for he established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel which he commanded our fathers that they should make them known to their children. In our last installment of the distinctives of our Presbytery, we began to consider the subject of what are called religious establishments. Essentially, our contention is that nations as nations should publicly acknowledge and honor God and his son, Jesus Christ. Again, nations as nations, they should not be indifferent They should not be noncommittal. They should not halt between two opinions, as the people did in the days of Elijah. But they ought explicitly and publicly to acknowledge and honor God and his son, Jesus Christ. And further, that the government of such nations, governments that God has ordained, should accordingly protect and support the church, as well as oppose false religion within its borders. We remember in the Book of Acts, A reference made to a ruler, a Roman ruler by the name of Gallio. After Sosthenes, a chief ruler of the synagogue, was for his faith taken aside by the Jews and beaten, we read that Gallio cared for none of these things. It didn't affect him. It wasn't his concern. It was a religious dispute between two different religious groups. Well, there are many, if not the majority, in the world at this time who think that those who are in government should be like Gallio. They should care for none of these things, at least in their official capacity. When it comes to religion, religion is a private affair. You keep it private in your prayer closet, in your home, or perhaps even in your houses of worship, but once it goes outside of those places, that's when there's a problem. The public sector, the public square needs to be religiously neutral. Well, we don't believe that. We believe that everyone, not just as individuals, But as nations ought to honor God and his son, Jesus Christ, and that the government should support the church explicitly. And even, at least to some degree, oppose false religion within its borders. We've looked at several arguments that support that basic thesis. There was the argument from humanity. We're not merely responsible to God as individuals, but as social groups. As families, we are responsible to God. As communities, and yes, as a society, and as a culture, we are not only responsible to God, for things that have a bearing on our social relationships, but we are also responsible before God to please him as a society. Second, we consider the argument from authority, the structure of authority that God has ordained. We are to submit to our parents, honor thy father and thy mother, But the fifth commandment extends beyond those words to include other forms of government, other fathers and mothers. There are fathers in the church. Paul said, you have many teachers, but you do not have many fathers. I begat you in the Lord. And the rulers within the state, the public sector, they are also fathers. And in Isaiah 49, verse 23, we read that in the great days of glory, the leaders of the nations would become as nursing fathers and nursing mothers to the church. So you see, if I am not just a father of my family, but if I'm a father of a state, in a sense, then I have a responsibility to God over the people that God has placed me for their entire well-being. I have a religious duty to my people. The third argument related to it comes from the moral law. How many tablets did God give Moses? Two. And the Ten Commandments are divided into two parts. There are the duties that we have to our fellow man and the duties in the first case that we have to God. Can I, as a private individual, can I as a father over my house, be indifferent to the first table commandments? Can I say to my child, well, the fourth commandment, that's the first table. Religious matters, that's up to you. I won't make you go to church. I'm not going to make you read your Bible or pray. Of course not. You see, I have a responsibility in the first case for myself to keep all ten commandments and I have a responsibility for those who are under me in my family. And so the civil magistrate whether he is a governor, whether he is a king, whether he is a president or prime minister. He has a responsibility to encourage obedience to the first four commandments as well as to the second six. They may not be indifferent to things like public blasphemy or to the violation of the fourth commandment. So there was the argument from humanity, we're not just individuals, but we are social units and we are responsible to God as families, as communities, as cities, as states, to God. Within society, he has structured the relationships With fathers not only of family but also of church and of state, and all three of these classes of rulers have a responsibility not only for themselves but for those under them to the entire law of God, the first and second table, the duties to God and the duties to one's fellow man. Fourth, the argument from example. The Hebrew kings, godly King David, Hezekiah, Asa, and Josiah are clearly set forth as examples of godly princes who promoted true religion within their realms. And then there was, of course, those notable instances from the heathen world, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Darius of Persia and the king of Nineveh who compelled his entire city to fast to repent before the Lord and so spared his city. Fifth, there is the argument from silence that is if the principle that rulers ought to be godly, and rule in a godly way, if that principle is developed in the Old Testament and isn't repealed in the New Testament, then it remains. It's not been discontinued. The principle, as Deuteronomy 17 set forth for a Hebrew king, that he was to be a man feared God and the first act, the first public act of his office was to take the quill and the parchment and hand write and copy out the entire Bible for himself. Well, if that ideal is held up, then we may only set it aside if God has explicitly canceled it in the New Testament. And sixth and last, we looked at the argument from prophecy that all the nations of the world would worship and honor the Lord such as in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 2 and in many other places. Well, we are going to continue with three final arguments and several objections. This is not the easiest subject. And so we anticipate many objections that perhaps not necessarily from yourself, but of others, although there are many questions that could be asked, especially in our modern situation here in America, where this principle is very explicitly denied. The final three arguments are the argument from missions, eighth, the argument from lesser lights, and ninth, the argument from the exaltation of Christ. So the argument from missions, this is a rather interesting one that was introduced to me by Thomas Chalmers. And his argument basically went like this. We should all support the gospel. Not just with our prayers, but also with our pocketbooks. Now there are some Christians whom God has blessed with means, they are wealthy, and they can patronize missions on a significant scale. There are some wealthy Christians who could underwrite the entire salary of a missionary or even more. The rest of us, however, we can pool our smaller funds and with others become, you might call, joint patrons. Now, what prohibits a Christian land? Now, assuming there's been revival through the preaching of the gospel, not at the force of a powerful government, but through the preaching of the gospel, a nation is significantly awakened and brought to the Lord Jesus Christ. What prohibits that Christian land, its leaders, and people in patronizing missions in an official way? by a legislative act endowing the cause of missions from the public treasury. Well, there are many things that the government can patronize. There are endowments made for the arts, for public education. If this were to be a Christian land again, what would prevent the people and its leaders by formally supporting the cause of missions from the public treasury. And does not even a Christian nation still have its home mission fields? Just as the poor we have always with us, so the lost we always have with us. And that was basically Chalmers' definition of a religious establishment. A large home mission. As an aside, interestingly, did you know that the United States government presently underwrites the work of the gospel here in Rhode Island? Our church is tax exempt. I receive a decent size tax break because I'm a minister. Now, of course, they do that with many others. with whose religious opinions we would very much be at odds, but you see here that there is something right that a Christian land should support the preaching of the gospel. Next, argument from lesser lights. Now by that I mean The Bible is, of course, our great authority. That is the first basis and the ultimate ground for our believing anything. And we essentially argue that government should not be religiously neutral, but explicitly Christian. We argue that because we believe it's biblical. but there are the lesser testimonies of others that are certainly worth considering. Pastors and theologians such as Augustine, who wrote in his classic book, The City of God, we say that they, that is rulers, are happy if they rule justly. And if, among other virtues, if they make their power the handmaid of his, his majesty, by using it for the greatest possible extension of his worship, if they fear, love, worship God. Martin Luther also idealized the godly prince, the governor, the ruler, the king, The magistrate who is not religiously neutral, who is not like Gallio and cares for none of these things, but is committed to God and says so publicly and explicitly and uses his influence for the promotion of true religion within his realm. Luther also believed in this, the gods he says, or rulers because their other virtues are to advance God's word and its preachers. John Calvin said, thus all have confessed, and by that he's referring to heathen authors, All have confessed that no polity or government can be successfully established unless piety or religion be its first care. And those laws are absurd, which disregard the rights of God and consult only for men. This is essentially what Calvin is saying. For those in government to say, we are only going to make and enforce laws that safeguard the rights of men. That's all we're going to do. No reference to any religious authority whatsoever. Calvin says that's absurd. Because why is life sacred? Because it was made in the image of God. Why is adultery to be prohibited? Because in the beginning, God made them male and female. The basis for all social morality is God. And when a man enters into office, is he to set aside his conviction that God is to be honored above all? There were also church councils giving us creeds and confessions. All of the Reformation confessions, at least all the ones that I've ever encountered, all support this idea that the government is not to be religiously neutral, but is to be committed to honoring God and his son, Jesus Christ. The French Confession of Faith of 1559 writes that God has put the sword into the hands of magistrates, magistrates are rulers or governors, to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the commandments of God. Or our subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, writes that the civil magistrate has 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. And then, of course, there are the instances of godly princes themselves. And time fails us to cover many. Perhaps the most notable is Constantine, Roman emperor from 306 to 337, who converted to become a Christian a dedicated follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and who defended the church. And on account of whose influence, the First Council of Nicaea came together and established the true doctrine concerning the person of Jesus Christ. Theodosius I, he was the Roman emperor from AD 379 to 395. Augustine writes about him, from the very commencement of his reign, he did not cease to help the troubled church against the impious by most just and merciful laws which the heretical valence favoring the Arians had vehemently afflicted. Indeed, he rejoiced more to be a member of this church than he did to be a king upon the earth." I don't know about you, but I think Augustine had rather high views of Theodosius and was grateful that he didn't keep his religion a private affair. Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, King of the Franks, the ancestors of the French from 771 to 814 was a very devout Christian king. He patronized the copying of religious works. He liked to have Augustine read to him He gave to the poor who were suffering in other kingdoms. Or King Alfred the Great of England. From 871 to 899, a pious king, he also patronized the church. He personally translated Gregory the Great's pastoral care into the English of the time for the benefit of pastors who didn't know Latin. So they can become better pastors. He recruited scholars from the continent and from Britain to aid in the revival of Christian learning and to provide the king personal instruction. And then one of my personal favorites, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, who ruled from 486 to 1525. He safeguarded Martin Luther. en route to the Diet of Worms where he was to defend his views before the emperor himself. And then when he courageously spoke, here I stand, I can do no other, it was Frederick III that had him smuggled into the dark forest of Germany in order to protect him from the powers that wanted him dead. And what should I say more for the time would fail me to speak of men like Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, William Bradford of Plymouth Colony, John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Ninth and last, the argument for the exaltation of Christ. What happened to Jesus after he rose from the dead? Well, he remained with the disciples for 40 days, teaching them the things concerning the kingdom of God. But at the end of that, his disciples were around him and he began to ascend from the earth and go into heaven. And it was there that he was seated at the right hand of God the Father. He was enthroned. He was crowned. He was seated in the highest places and given the greatest honor. And he now waits, according to 1 Corinthians 15, until all things are subdued under his feet. All things are subdued under his feet. I think the implications of many of the texts of the New Testament that speak to this are clear. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, but not kings, not governors, Oh, you see, we live in an open-minded society. We're so very tolerant, you see. At the name of Jesus, every knee should bow. Of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, That's pretty comprehensive, I would say. That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Isn't that what the apostles were doing when they went preaching the gospel? Preaching that Jesus is Lord. and calling sinners to acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. Is that not what the Apostle Paul announced to kings and to Caesar himself? That that one that was crucified under your authority God has made him both Lord and Christ. And would you not submit to him? That he is the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth. Well, having looked at these arguments, let's deal with some objections. So we've set forth the claim that nations, as nations, should publicly acknowledge God and his son, Jesus Christ, and that government should not be religiously neutral, but should support Christianity. It might be asked, but we no longer live under a theocracy. Wasn't that for the Old Testament? Well, what is a theocracy? Well, a democracy is a rule by the people. A theocracy is a rule by God. Well, God did rule his people directly in the Old Testament. But we should also observe that the Old Testament Church did not really live under a theocracy under the godly kings. Technically, the theocracy came to an end under Samuel when King Saul was anointed. But even if one should quibble, the moral law continues. The first four commandments, the duty that we have to God, not just as individuals, but as families and as communities and as a state. But it's nowhere stated in the New Testament. Well, that's true. Our argument from silence stands. But there are other things that we believe that we believe because they are good and necessary consequences of the Bible, including the New Testament. For example, the Trinity. Nowhere in the New Testament will we ever find the word Trinity. But we look at different passages. And when we collect them together, we draw the conclusion that there is such a thing as the Trinity, or infant baptism. We don't find infants baptized in the Book of Acts. We acknowledge that, although we do find households baptized. Infant baptism is proven by arguments from good and necessary consequence. Interestingly, the objection that we don't find infants baptized in the New Testament is similar to this very issue because we don't find Christian rulers or Christian kings in the New Testament. But that's simply because none had converted yet. And you can't blame the Apostle Paul for not trying. So what happens when somebody who is a king, who is a ruler, converts to the faith of Jesus Christ? Well, that's where these kinds of issues come in. It may seem rather impractical right now, but not so when the Holy Spirit begins to move. But what about the separation of church and state? Well, the Bible supports that. The Bible does support the separation of church and state. Second Chronicles 26, 16 to 18 reads, Uzziah was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction for he transgressed against the Lord his God and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him and with him four score priests of the Lord that were valiant men. And they withstood Uzziah the king and said unto him, it appertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for thou has trespassed, neither shall it be for thine honor from the Lord God." Even in the Old Testament, the civil rulers could not do whatever they pleased within the Church of God. There was a line separating church and state. King James was disregarding that line in the late 16th century and intruding into the affairs of the church. And Melville stands courageously before him and said, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the king of the church, whose subject, James VI, is and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. So yes, we believe in the separation of church and state. But not absolutely. Not as though the church has nothing to say to the state and the state has nothing to say to the church. But rather that they should be distinct partners. My heart is separate from my lungs, but not absolutely so. If we should absolutely separate them, then you had better search for a new pastor, because I won't be standing here. But doesn't this crush liberty of conscience and promote persecution? Roger Williams, the great founder of our state, in many ways a good Christian man. said that men's consciences ought not to be violated, urged, or constrained. Well, let's reply with the words of another governor, John Winthrop. True liberty is not liberty to do evil as well as good. Or conscience is not absolute. Rather, what is absolute is the law of God. The perfect law of liberty. Also consider that here in America, people are all the time compelled to practice a religion they didn't choose. We call these people children. Should we be consistent and leave all religious matters up to them? Friends, every Christian home is a little religious establishment. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. And so there are obviously limits to liberty of conscience. As for promoting persecution, contrasted to the barbarity of the Church of Rome, Dr. William Young writes that the doctrine of the reformers and the Puritans has never borne such gruesome fruit. What does this mean then, forcing conversions? making people Christian at the end of a bayonet. Again, Roger Williams said, that cannot be a true religion which needs carnal weapons to uphold it. Well, no. By no means do we suggest that people should be forced to be Christians. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, the pulling down of strongholds. And our forefathers who believed in these principles said as much. The Cambridge Platform, written by the Puritans in Massachusetts, said it is not within the power of the magistrates to compel their subjects to become church members and to partake of the Lord's table, for the priests are rebuked that brought unworthy ones into the sanctuary. Wouldn't religious establishments breed formalism in religion? Cold-hearted externalism? Well, under a good, truly Christian government, hypocrisy is never the fault of the government, but of the hypocrites. They should be true Christians, not because their government promotes it, but because they believe it. But the same may be said of Christian families. The Christian father and mother establish Christianity as the religion of the home. Some of the children could conform, but not in heart. Now is that the fault of the parents, if children only conform outwardly, but not in heart? Two last objections. Haven't church establishments failed becoming corrupt and godless? Yes. Absolutely. The reason why our ancestors came to the shores of New England was because of the corruption of a church establishment. They were fleeing from persecution. But when something that is otherwise good becomes corrupt, do you destroy the thing that is good or do you reform it? Civil governments become corrupt. Do we get rid of civil governments and live under anarchy because of corruption? No. You push for reform. Last, doesn't a church establishment, make the church beholden to the state. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Well, no more than a pastor is beholden to the congregation that pays him. There's always the possibility. There's always the possibility that The church can compromise, but it's the responsibility of the church to take the donations and to stand strong in principle. Now, many further questions and objections could be raised. I've certainly only scratched the surface. Perhaps a number of questions concerning how this exactly applies. How far? To what extent? How rigorous should a government be in opposing false religion? Let me just conclude with three closing counsels. First, consider the distinction between principle and application. There may be many and different applications based upon different circumstances. What if it's the reformation or the revival only of the government but not of the people? It's very popular with the rulers, but not with the majority of the people, or vice versa. What if there's this groundswell of Christian revival with the people, but the rulers aren't supportive? Many different circumstances, but we need to ask, is the principle biblical? One can debate how these things are applied. Second, we really need to realize how far we have all been influenced by Enlightenment thinking. The Enlightenment was a great movement in the West, roughly the same time as the Protestant Reformation, but it was very different in its spirit making man the measure of all things. We need to make sure that we are being renewed in the spirit of our mind and not thinking in human categories. Last, we need to go back to the arguments and to see if, in fact, they are biblical and avoid emotive thinking. Oh, but this is going to lead to the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Well, is the principle biblical? May the Lord Grant that the nations whom he has made and the rulers may fear him and his son. Let us close in prayer. O Lord, we do pray that we would be consistent Christians living out our faith in the absolute Lordship of Christ in every sphere of our lives. And we pray, Lord, that there may be a day in which the people and the rulers of this land may once again fear the Lord. Graciously grant us thy blessing we ask in the Redeemer's name. Amen. We close by singing from Psalm 72, 72 verses 7 to 11. to the tune Tallis, tune number 129. The just shall flourish in his days and prosper in his reign. He shall, while doth the moon endure, abundant peace maintain. His large and great dominion shall from sea to sea extend. It from the river shall reach forth unto earth's utmost end. Verses 7-11 shall flourish in his days and prosper in his reign. He shall, while doth the moon endure, abundant peace maintain. His large and great dominion shall from sea to sea extend. It from the river shall reach forth unto earth's utmost end. Lay in the wilderness that dwells, bow down before him once, And they that are his enemies shall lick the very dust. The kings of Tarshish and the isles to him shall presents bring and unto him shall offer gifts Shiba's and Siba's king. Yea, all the mighty kings on earth before him down shall fall. And all the nations of the world do service to him shall. Please rise for the benediction. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.