Welcome to Church and State, the Biblical View, a compilation of articles from some of the best Christian minds in history by George Smeaton, Thomas McCree, William Symington, William Cunningham, George Gillespie, the Westminster Assembly, James Bannerman, Robert Shaw, and John Owen, with a special Revival Review edition written by Reg Barrow. Read by W. J. Mancaro and produced by Stillwaters Revival Books. www.swrb.com Classic Reformation, Puritan and Covenanter and homeschooling resources. Free and at great discounts. You may contact Stillwaters Revival Books at 4710 37A Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L3T5. Our phone number is 780-450-3730. Email swrb at swrb.com. And again, our website address is www.swrb.com. First we'll read a statement. of the difference between the profession of the Reformed Church of Scotland as adopted by seceders and the profession contained in the New Testimony and other Acts." This was written by Thomas McCree and published in Edinburgh, C. F. Lyon, in 1871. And we will not be reading the entire book, however, we will be reading the preface and we'll be reading selected excerpts from it, beginning with section six. First, the preface. The celebrated statement of the late Dr. McCree, of which a reprint in full is here presented to the public, was drawn up with the express design of exhibiting the difference between the profession of the Reformed Church of Scotland and the theory of voluntarism. The latter term, indeed, was not yet in common use. The question discussed, however, was precisely the same. It was not the question, as in former times, with what restrictions and with what regard to the Church's intrinsic freedom may magistrates competently exercise their power above religion. It was the absolute question. Is any power whatever competent to the Christian civil ruler in seeking to further the cause of Christ? Dr. McCree's work discusses this point and possesses the following peculiarities. It is a masterly defense of the principle of establishments as a scripture truth, and the most complete vindication ever given to the world of the position occupied by the Reformed Church of Scotland on the whole subject of national religion and of the magistrate's legitimate power in promoting it. The occasion which called forth the treatise was as follows. A change had been introduced into the testimony of the church of which Dr. McCree was a minister, on the question of the civil ruler's authority and duty in reference to religion. About the same period, that is, during the last decennium of the previous century, the leaven of voluntarism, or the theory that it is not competent to the Christian ruler to exercise his authority and influence in behalf of religion in any form, began to work within the pale both of the burger and anti-burger sections of the Secession Church. To the latter only, as the denomination to which Dr. McCree belonged, do we deem it necessary to refer in this place. In the Anti-Berger Synod, or General Associates Synod as it was termed, a motion was made in 1795 to take steps for preparing or compiling a new historical and doctrinal testimony for the use of the denomination. Various reasons prompted this proposal. It was deemed fitting to simplify the document heretofore used as a testimony. to put together in a readable form what had been said in several publications on their distinctive principles, and to bring down the testimony to the time then present. But above all, it was thought desirable, as the event too plainly proved, to find expression for the new opinions already widely diffused on the subject of the magistrate's power in reference to religion, in other words, to make room for the voluntary theory. For some years, the people were kept on the tiptoe of expectation for the new display of the secession testimony, which was to supersede that previously in use and to prove a great improvement upon it. When at length it appeared, after nine years spent in its preparation, it was found to say and unsay, some passage doing homage to the past attainments of the Reformed Church of Scotland, while others were all too plainly at variance with the previously recognized doctrine of the Secession Church in reference to the lawfulness of the connection between church and state. But, as is not unusual in such cases, the extent of the alteration was sought to be concealed. A radical change, or rather a revolution, had been made in the constitution of this section of the Secession Church. But the change was not for a time openly avowed. The Synod, abandoning the principles and position of the Secession Church, though still retaining the name, had in fact become a dissenting denomination. It had broken with the historic Church of Scotland. The connection was dissolved. There was a certain misstatement, therefore, in asserting that they continued, as heretofore, to bear testimony to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Reformed Church of Scotland. The confession, received in 1647 with one explanation, was now received with many limitations, under color of carrying out the course of action then initiated. They declared their liberty of signifying their adherence to it with the same or similar limitations, page 12. The section in particular which described what was confident to the civil magistrate was evacuated of its import under the plea that it taught compulsory measures in religion. It was perverted, too, from its proper meaning, as if it might be accepted in the sense of referring to the magistrate in his private capacity, page 198. Furthermore, the scheme of separating the narrative and doctrinal part of the New Testimony from each other, that is, by binding the members of the Church solely to the latter, men's minds were gradually led away from the facts in support of which the Secession Testimony had at first been raised. In short, the historic basis was, to a large extent, removed. We frankly acknowledge that in the exhibition of doctrine there is much precious statement of central truth worthy of the best times of the Secession Church. But it cannot be denied that wherever reference is made, directly or indirectly, to the misleading negation of voluntarism, we encounter one-sided statements, vacillation, and defective exposition. The Synod on the 1st of May 1804 approved the testimony and enacted that henceforth, for all who entered the denomination, it should be held as the bond or term of ministerial and Christian communion. Then followed, on the part of a small but influential minority, a determined opposition. Only six ministers refused to acquiesce in the change made on the Constitution of the Church. But their piety and ability, as well as their literary eminence, gave weight to the cause they represented. Two of the number, Mr. Zwytok of Dalkeith and Hogg of Kelso, were soon removed from the scene of conflict by death. The four who remained, Rev. Prof. Bruce of Whitburn, Rev. Mr. Aitken of Curemore, Rev. Mr. Chalmers of Haddington, and Dr. McCree maintained the old testimony in all its integrity, but they suffered deposition at the hand of the majority. Their testimony, however, was not to be suppressed. Forming themselves into a presbytery, under the designation of the Constitutional Presbytery, they rendered the most important service to the entire Presbyterian Church by their clear and scriptural testimony to national Christianity. It is unnecessary further to narrate the history of these witnesses. They may be collected from the memoir of Dr. McCree as well as from Dr. McCarrow's History of the Secession Church. My present purpose is, in the briefest possible compass, to call attention to the important publications which took their rise from this controversy. One subject and all its various applications occupied their attention during these debates. This was the subject of national religion. They felt themselves constrained by arguments drawn both from natural and revealed religion to assign to the civil magistrate a greatly wider sphere of action in religious things than did the church from which they separated. But they were not less careful than the other party to exclude every element of Erastianism. They held that there must be a close connection between religion and all organized civil society, that this was essential, if not to its being, at least to its well-being, and that the diffusion of Christianity ought to be an object of the deepest interest to every ruler, having at heart the peace, the prosperity, and the welfare of the nation over which he is placed. Of the treatises which appeared at this time, one of the most remarkable in some respects was a pungent and satirical inquiry into the consistency of the narrative and testimony entitled, Old Light Better Than the Pretended New, by the Reverend Mr. Turnbull of Glasgow. There is scarcely a vulnerable point which he did not assail. And every subject mooted or suggested by the testimony, especially in connection with national Christianity, and the evidence supplied by the Old Testament, is acutely, though curtly, and often bluntly discussed. The addresses to their several congregations also, by Mr. Hogg and Chalmers, are weighty and valuable, succinctly stating the points of difference between them and the supporters of the new theory. These publications are well worthy of a careful perusal and of a wider circulation than at that time they acquired. I must notice, furthermore, a volume of considerable size by Professor Bruce entitled A Review of the Proceedings of the Associate Synod. Though this work is too minute in matters of detail and too full of the personalities of the controversy, it is replete with important statements and will be read with pleasure and advantage by everyone who takes national religion in earnest. Of all the publications, however, which owed their origin to these discussions, by far the most important was the statement of the difference by Dr. McCree, now reprinted. Little, if anything, in the work can be called antiquated. It rests on a foundation of mingled argument and historical fact, which serve to make the reader feel that he is standing on firm ground. The scripture testimony for national religion is developed by means of such a natural and convincing exposition that few will think of calling in question the conclusion to which he arrives. unless men are content, as sectaries commonly are, to have recourse to the position that the question cannot be elucidated from the Old Testament, but must be discussed on the narrowed basis of the Gospels and Epistles, where, from the nature of the case, there is no occasion to introduce the subject of national Christianity, few will be able to resist the force of Dr. McCree's proof. As to its theological and historical elements, they embody the genuine spirit of the entire Protestant Church. They are the very same principles which at one time found a response wherever the Reformation extended. The questions now raised among us, though in a different interest, are precisely the same in substance, and not much changed even in form, as were the discussions which called forth the unanswerable statement of Dr. McCree. Its theological and scriptural arguments are fully as appropriate and seasonable in 1871 as they were in 1807 when it first appeared. or might I add, in the 21st century. The theory of voluntarism was at that time more a topic for speculation than a practical action, but Dr. McCree took its measure from the very first. He saw all its import in the germ long before it came to be applied to the overthrow of the existing establishments of religion. And he strenuously asserted that had the nations of Europe acted on the principle which he labored to refute and expose, the Reformation, under the liberties of which all the Protestant nations still repose, never could have taken place. Here I shall briefly advert to the main topics of discussion in the publications to which I have referred, and then notice the exceptions that have been taken to the way in which the writers conducted the controversy. As to the first of these, the principal topics on which Dr. McCree and his friends laid emphasis were the three following. 1. The place assigned in matters of religion to the civil ruler or to the Christian nation acting through its rulers in a corporate capacity. The Synod, in their new testimony, had asserted that the power competent to worldly kingdoms is wholly temporal, respecting only the secular interests of society. Of course they adduce no scripture for this, because no scripture could be adduced to lend countenance to such a tenet. Nor can it be deduced by sound deduction from any revealed truth. The advocates of the Synod could only have recourse to the rights of man. With this dogma consistently carried out, the separating brethren clearly proved that all the laws previously in force in every Christian country in favor of religion, the Sabbath, scripture education and the like, must needs be cancelled by a universal act, recissory. They, on the contrary, maintained from scripture that nations as such are under obligation to recognize the true religion and aid in its diffusion by wise and salutary laws. They maintained that rulers are bound to give civil sanction to the truth, to establish the church, and to contribute from the national resources for the furtherance of the gospel." This was one point which they argued out in all its bearings. 2. Liberty of conscience on its true foundation was fully and admirably expounded. The doctrine of the Synod in this point was, in the last degree, unguarded. They not only tied up the magistrates' hands from any exercise of civil authority in suppressing blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, or profaneness, representing such coercive measures as inconsistent with the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, but went so far as to allege that the national sanction of one particular profession of Christianity in preference to another partook of the nature of compulsion, intolerance, and persecution. On the contrary, The separating brethren put the question of liberty of conscience on its true ground, that is, they placed it not on the mere metaphysical rights of man, but on the ground that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and that its rights as derived from Him can never be alleged as running counter to the authority of God speaking in His word and commanding nations and rulers to obey Him. The unregulated license to which I have referred was well designated by the Reverend Mr. Chalmers of Haddington, the grim idol, at whose shrine the entire national profession of religion and the due exercise of magisterial power about religion were recklessly sacrificed. 3. The Christian state, according to the Old Testament precedent, was represented by the separating brethren as an organized community capable of being in covenant with God. On this they laid great stress. This was the most definite expression, according to these brethren, for national religion, and their whole theory in large measure took its peculiar color from this conviction. Again, the Christian state, according to the Old Testament precedent, was represented by the separating brethren as an organized community capable of being in covenant with God. Not that they supposed any step or act of man originating the relation between a state and God. Rather, their whole mode of representing the matter proceeded on the supposition that by an act of pervenient grace the nation to whom the word of God had come occupied a position analogous to that of Israel. And the formal act of covenanting was but the expression of the national consciousness of being taken into such a relation. Nor was this a merely Scottish idea, for we find in other countries the same thing done or fully approved of. Next in order, we must notice the exceptions that have been taken to the positions laid down by Dr. McCree and his friends. These will be found in the counter-publications of the period. But more recently, they have been summed up by Dr. McCarrow from his peculiar viewpoint in his history of the Secession Church. Some of these objections were simply frivolous. Thus, when Mr. Allen charged him with making a real attack upon the sole headship of Christ, not consenting to his ruling his own kingdom by his sole authority, but taking civil magistrates into a kind of partnership with him, this was felt to be so groundless and gratuitous that others honorably acquitted them of entertaining any such tenant. There are three objections, however, to which it may not be out of place to allude in a few words. That the protesting brethren, not content to take the Church's testimony immediately from Scripture, insisted on making reference to the attainments of former times, as exhibited in the Confession of Faith and other standards. The Synod had, in the introduction of the testimony, stated, quote, The foundation upon which we rest the whole of our ecclesiastical constitution is the testimony of God in His Word. that main pillar of the Reformation, that the Bible contains the whole religion of Protestants, we adopt for our fundamental principle." And had both economies been appealed to without reservation, no exception would have been taken to this position. But the important subject of national religion was dropped under color of going immediately to Scripture. The reader of Dr. McCree's statement will discover that he finds fault with the testimony published by the Synod on the ground now noticed, and some may be startled at finding a position laid down which they are at a loss to account for. Quote, the new testimony, says he, is drawn up upon the principle that the Church's testimony ought to be taken immediately from the Scriptures, without a reference to the attainments of former times. an opinion repeatedly pleaded for by its compilers, and evidently acted upon in the present instance. Accordingly, the doctrines asserted in it are asserted simply as agreeable, and the doctrines condemned as contrary to the word of God, without viewing them in their reference to the confession of faith and other subordinate standards, and even without mentioning any of these except perhaps in an incidental way in an instance or two. Besides, it contains doctrines that are contradictory to the confession of faith and which were never received into the confession or terms of communion of this or any other Presbyterian church." In a word, the object of the Synod was to break with the past and initiate a new history. And it is a plausible way of representing the matter to say that the Church, overleaping all the intermediate development between us and the Apostles, is not to be the slave of our own history. To this mode of putting the case, it may suffice to reply in general that were it possible to ignore all the past between us and the age of the apostles, which it is not, it would yield a very doubtful advantage, for the same course of development or a similar one would only have to be repeated. But in the case before us, there was a particular reason for the step, and the answer must be equally particular. The immediate design was to drop a truth under the guise of drawing the testimony direct from Scripture. And the position laid down by the protesting brethren was that an article of doctrine, once confessed on the authority of Scripture, can never be laid aside by a church without a thorough refutation of the article from the divine word, and a general conviction that it is erroneous and indefensible. This was the ground they occupied, and it is irrefragible. No article of doctrine taken into the standards of the church can be simply abandoned till its contrariety to the word of God has been conclusively established to the conviction of all. A second charge against the protesting brethren is that although the new testimony decidedly expressed the opinion that the connection between church and state was unlawful, they would not exercise forbearance where it is alleged forbearance is not only warrantable but demanded. But it was not a question of forbearance. It was a question that related to the lawfulness and propriety of dropping all confession to the great truth of national religion. The discussion turned largely on the peculiar attitude which was to be taken to the Old Testament economy. The advocates of the new opinions denied, on two well-defined grounds, the validity of the argument drawn from the Old Testament. It was held in the first place that the Jewish nation but typically prefigured the Christian church. And in the second place, the spirituality of the new economy was held up as the absolute contrast of the previous carnal economy. In a word, the typical character of Judaism and a carnal or non-spiritual service were represented very incorrectly as the market peculiarities of the Jewish nation. These allegations were the ostensible plea on which a Presbyterian church, making a transition to the narrow principles and misconceptions of the sectaries, sought to explode every argument drawn from the Old Testament scriptures. The separating brethren maintained the very reverse, as will be seen from all their publications. They asserted, first, that Israel was not the type of the Church of God, but the Church of God itself. under a different dispensation. This was the ground asserted by Wendolanus and all Protestant divines. As to the element of spirituality, they held that the two economies did not differ in kind, but only in degree and outward form. When the advocates of the new principles came to apply the typical theory to Jewish rulers, whose function was at once moral and permanent, The self-contradictory nature of their principle became apparent. Mr. Turnbull, in his acute and lively manner, triumphantly exposed the absurdity of attempting to explain the exercise of magistrate authority and influence among the Jews in behalf of religion on the alleged ground that the office was typical of Christ. Dr. McCree does the same thing in his own lucid and argumentative way. A third charge is that the point for which the protesting brethren contended was too speculative or too frivolous to warrant their separation. It had respect, said the advocates of the Synod, merely to the authority or function of the civil magistrate, that is, to the action of a third party. The separating brethren, however, on their part, put the matter in a wholly different light. On the one hand, the ecclesiastical action against which they protested presented itself to their minds as such a falling away from the faithful profession of divine truth and from past attainments in reformation, as such a dereliction of duty toward God and man, that they felt themselves summoned to refuse ecclesiastical obedience and to separate from the church by which they were ordained. They felt, moreover, that it was an easy task to vindicate their position. However much the Synod might endeavor to represent the matter as small, because limited to points not touching the grounds of personal salvation, it appeared in a wholly different light to them. It was the whole question of national religion, whether nations were competent to serve Christ or not. And Dr. McCree sets forth in the most convincing way that there are few doctrines, quote, of the practical kind in which the best interests of mankind and the general state of religion in the world are more deeply concerned than in the right and wrong determination of this question, unquote. They maintain that no permission has been given to any of the Lord's disciples to break any of the least of his commandments and to teach men so. The momentous topic of national religion was as worthy, they considered, to be contended for as any other important truth. They held that it directly bore on the honor of Christ. It only remains to add that the design of this reprint is to make Dr. McCree's statement of the difference accessible to all. The general circulation of the work has long been felt to be a desideratum. It had become extremely rare and sold at a very high price. and it is hoped that its circulation will have no inconsiderable influence in forming opinion in the present crisis. More especially, as the questions now raised in the country, and which seem destined to divide and to convulse the nation, are in substance the very same as those which called forth Dr. McCree's invaluable statement. We'll now turn to Section 6 of Dr. McCree's book, Statement of the Difference between the Profession of the Reformed Church of Scotland as Adopted by Succeeders and the Profession Contained in the New Testimony and Other Acts. Section 6 begins on the difference as to the exercise of civil authority with reference to religion and the connection between church and state. That civil and religious society, and where revelation is enjoyed, church and state, with their respective authorities, are distinct and mutually independent in their proper line and employment, will readily be granted by all who have just notions on the subject. But societies and powers which are distinct and independent may have common objects about which they are employed, and may promote these with harmony and cooperation. Religion is an object of common interest to mankind, and, as it enters into and deeply affects the various relations in which they stand connected with one another, becomes an object of attention and care to all. Magistrates, ministers, masters, and parents have all a distinct and peculiar concern with it, and the authority of each may be employed about it, without encroaching on the business or usurping the powers of the others. Inattention to this general view of religion, and the connection which it necessarily has with the various relations of life, lies at the foundation of many of the modern errors which prevail on this subject. That more special concern which certain persons have with religion, particularly in consequence of their being placed, according to divine institution, in offices properly religious and ecclesiastical, in which the immediate administration of religious ordinances is committed unto them, and unto which they are to give themselves wholly, does not set aside the more general concern which other persons have with it as connected with their office and station, and those powers and duties which are founded in nature, and more clearly unfolded by revelation. When masters and parents employ their authority for promoting religion, they do not interfere with the office of ministers of the gospel, nor does their power thereby become ecclesiastical, but still remains parental. In like matter, when civil rulers employ their authority for the same purpose, they do not encroach upon the proper business of church courts. Their power remains civil and political and does not become ecclesiastical or spiritual, although it be exercised about objects religious and ecclesiastical. To set aside or deny the powers belonging unto any of these because we may not be able exactly to define their limits, or because they may interfere with and encroach upon one another, which in real life and among erring and corrupt men may be expected, would be unreasonable and absurd. In large and extensive societies in particular, which coordinate such as a kingdom and a church of equal or nearly equal extent, and consisting chiefly of the same individuals, there must be more danger of such interferences with the jealousies consequent upon them. Yet as these do not arise from any formal or particular alliance, but from circumstances resulting from their coexistence and actings, So far from being an objection against every connection and alliance, they on the contrary demonstrate the propriety of agreeing to and establishing such rules, as may bid fairest for preventing these evils and for conducting matters so that both societies may gain their ends more fully to their mutual benefit. The brethren who protested against the late deeds of Synod have had no differences with them as to the necessary distinction between church and state, or the independence of the former upon the latter in all her intrinsic jurisdiction and administrations. This has been an eminent part of the testimony and contendings of the Church of Scotland, and to it they cordially adhere, in opposition to all Erastian tenets and the sinful encroachments of civil powers which have long prevailed and do still continue to prevail in some Protestant countries. To the general propositions of the Synod on this head in their late testimonies, Chapter 23 of that which was enacted in 1801 and Chapter 24 of the one enacted in 1804, they do not object in as far as they state the common doctrine respecting the essential distinction between church and state and their mutual independence, although they consider many of their explications and inferences as false and misapplied. That Christ is the sole head of the church that he has an exclusive right to appoint all her laws and ordinances of worship and service, that all administrations in his house are to be performed in his name and by his authority, and that his servants in the proper line of their office do not act by the authority of, or by delegation from, any earthly prince or legislature, so as to receive and execute their mandates, or be responsible to them for their ministrations, are precious articles of testimony, which these brethren hold as dear as any in the synod, and which it is hoped they shall not be left to relinquish or forget. To charge them with making the civil magistrate the head of the church, invest him with an ecclesiastical power and supremacy over her, or ascribing to him a lordship over the faith and consciences of men they regard as the language of ignorance, gross inattention, or perverse misrepresentation. But in full consistency with these principles, they think they can maintain that civil authority may be lawfully and beneficially employed in the advancement of religion and the kingdom of Christ. The care of religion, in the general view of it, in which respect the consideration of it is previous to that of the form which it assumes, in consequence of supernatural revelation and the erection of a church state, belongs to the magistrate's office. and it is his duty to watch over its external interests, and to exert himself in his station to preserve upon the minds of his subjects an impression of its obligations and sanctions, and to suppress irreligion, impiety, profanity, and blasphemy. It is also the duty of civil rulers, and must be their interest, to exert themselves to introduce the gospel into their dominions when it may be but partially enjoyed, and by salutary laws and encouragements to provide them with the means of instruction and a settled dispensation of ordinances, especially in poor and desolate or in ignorant and irreligious parts of the country, all which they may do without propagating Christianity by the sword or forcing a profession of religion on their subjects by penal laws, when religion has become corrupt after it has been received and established in a nation, and has degenerated into a system of falsehood, superstition, idolatry and tyranny, carried on by churchmen, aided by the civil powers, and where various abuses of this kind are interwoven with the civil constitution and administration, an eminent exercise of civil authority is requisite for the reformation of these, not by the abolition of all laws respecting religion, as a matter which civil government has no concern with, and by leaving everything to individual exertion or voluntary associations, which would only breed anarchy and endless disorder, but by magistrates taking an active part in prosecuting a public reformation, removing external hindrances, correcting public and established abuses, allowing, and in some cases calling together and supporting ecclesiastical assemblies for settling the internal affairs of the church and of religion, that unity and peace may be preserved. as was done by the rulers of different countries at the period of the Reformation from Potpourri and in Britain at the time of the Westminster Assembly. In an ordinary state of matters, they also judge that it is the duty of civil rulers to maintain and support the interests of religion and the kingdom of Christ by publicly recognizing and countenancing its institutions, giving the legal sanction to a public profession or confession of its faith, a particular form of worship and ecclesiastical discipline, which are ratified as national. and by making public and permanent provision for the religious instruction of their subjects and the maintenance of divine ordinances among them. These, with other things of a similar kind agreeable to the principles of Presbyterians, civil rulers may do in the exercise of their authority, without encroaching upon the office or business of the church and its office-bearers, without compelling their subjects to believe or practice what they do not believe or judge sinful, and without punishing persons who may conscientiously dissent from the authorized and established religion, or depriving them of their natural rights merely on this ground. While at the same time, by using their authority in this way, magistrates do act for the honor of him by whom they rule, for the promotion of religion, the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, and the public good of their subjects. When these things are considered, it will appear that many of those propositions which are usually brought forward to set aside the exercise of magistral authority about religion are impertinent and inconclusive, being founded upon a mistake of the principles upon which it proceeds and a confounding of things totally distinct. We may also see that several of the assertions of the Synod, in illustration of their propositions, are so general and vague that they can give no satisfaction to those who seek for distinct ideas upon the subject. It is true, as asserted by them, that the Christian religion annexes no new powers to any office or relation founded in nature. But it is also true that it does more than lay everyone who professes it under the strongest obligations to the faithful discharge of the duties of his station. It gives new and higher qualifications to them for the discharge of duties, and also presents new objects about which they are to be employed. The Christian religion does not properly add any new powers to masters, parents, husbands, but it not only lays them under stronger obligations to the discharge of their respective duties and give them greater fitness for this, it also widens the sphere of their operation and brings new objects within their reach. It is the same as to magistrates. The synod says, quote, Christian magistrates have no power to give laws to the church, unquote. But without doing this they can make laws in that civil society of which they are the organs for the good of the church and the advancement of the interests of religion. The synods say further, quote, they have no power to prescribe a confession of faith or form of worship to the church or their subjects in general. But may not ecclesiastical as well as civil rulers be guilty by assuming the power of prescribing a confession of faith and form of worship? The original and proper appointment of articles of faith and the mode of worship belongs to Christ, and He hath prescribed these in His word. But if by prescribing be meant recognizing and setting forward these, then this may be competent to both, when they act in subordination to the divine authority and in their direct line and order. When the body of a nation are agreed in the profession of the true religion, and a particular confession of faith, form of worship, etc., have been drawn from the Scriptures by those to whom this work immediately belongs, the adding of the civil sanction to them, though this does not give them any spiritual authority nor make them more binding as ecclesiastical deeds, and their being thus considered as national, may be justified as lawful, expedient, and in many cases highly necessary. Nor does this ascribe to magistrates any juridical powers incompatible with the nature of their office, or which encroach upon the province of ecclesiastical courts. The testimony now adopted by the Synod is not only very defective, as it does not contain or exhibit any principles upon which the civil reformation in this land, formerly witnessed for, can be vindicated, But it also advances doctrine aversive of this, and directly opposite to that which is contained in the Word of God, in the standards of the Church of Scotland, and in the public papers of the Secession, respecting the authority and duty of civil rulers. It denies that the authority of magistrates extends to religion or matters ecclesiastical, limiting its exercise to the civil or secular concerns of mankind. The power, say the Synod, competent to worldly kingdoms is wholly temporal, respecting only the secular interests of society. This is still more apparent from the sixth section of the same chapter, in which they profess to state the duty of civil magistrates with respect to the Church and the interests of religion. The whole of what is said to be incumbent upon them in their official character is contained in one sentence, and is confined to protection and the securing of a universal liberty of worship. " It is their duty in their official character to protect her, the Church, in the peaceable possession of her rights as a society, and to secure all her members the full enjoyment of liberty of conscience so long as they act as peaceable members of the civil state." This protection, it is evident, is no more than what the Synod must consider is due to every society calling itself a church, however heretical and corrupt, yea, to every society erected for the most common purposes. And the securing of liberty of conscience of which they speak cannot be confined to those who are members of the Church of Christ, For the Synod had before declared that, quote, a liberty of worshipping God in the way which they judge agreeable to his will is a right common to all men, unquote. Page 195. And this must be the right which magistrates are to secure. So that, in their official character, according to the Synod's doctrine, magistrates are to do no more for a true church than a false, and no more for Christians than for Jews, Deists, Mohammedans, or Pagans. All that follows, after the sentence above quoted to the end of the section, it is carefully to be observed, respects magistrates solely in their private character. For it is immediately added, quote, But there are many other things incumbent upon the magistrate in his private character, for the glory of him by whom kings reign, and for the prosperity of his interest in the world. He is, as well as all other men, to acquaint himself with the divine word, etc. It is his duty, like every subject of God's government, to use his own advice and example for promoting and preserving religious worship, and, like other church members, he is to contribute according to his ability for the spread of the gospel and the support of a gospel ministry. Only it is allowed that his private purse is heavier than that of other church members, and that his advice and example may have more influence. And this is all that is specially allotted and allowed to magistrates in the word of God. All that is meant in such passages of scripture as Isaiah 49, verse 23, Psalm 72, verse 10, to which the synod refer at the foot of the page. This is all the sense and meaning in which the synod adhere to the passages of the confession which teach the duty of civil rulers as to religion. The reference to the confession of faith and the use of its words, with the explication and limitation added, deserve particular notice. The following are the Synod's words and the manner in which they are printed. It is his duty, as a subject of God's government, in obedience to the second commandment, to use his endeavors that the truth of God be kept pure and entire. that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, that all corruptions in the worship of God and discipline of the Church be prevented or reformed, and that all the ordinances of God be duly administered and observed. The endeavors for accomplishing these ends must all be such as are consistent with the spirit of the gospel, not by the interposition of the civil sword, but by his own advice and example." The things about which it is here said the magistrate must use his endeavors include the whole of the public worship and ordinances of God, whether natural or revealed, moral as well as positive. This is evident from their being arranged under the second commandment of the moral law, said to be the duty of the magistrate as a subject of God's government and from the particulars enumerated. What then are the endeavors which the magistrate is to use? What are the means which he is to employ for gaining these ends, or any of them? that they, quote, must all be such as are consistent with the spirit of the gospel, none will doubt, as all that the magistrate does ought to be so, but the synod add, quote, not by the interposition of the civil sword, but by his own advice and example, unquote. Although it is not improbable that the phrase the civil sword is here introduced in term, yet as contrasted with advice and example, it must refer to the authority of the magistrate in general. as the expression of the sword is used by divines agreeably to scripture to express civil authority, in like manner as the keys is used as the denomination of that authority which is ecclesiastical. Accordingly, the Synod exclude all exercise of civil authority about divine worship and ordinances, confining him to the use of advice and example, in suppressing all blasphemies and errors, preventing or reforming all corruptions and abuses in worship or discipline, and in taking order to have all the ordinances of God administered and observed. Accordingly, the Synod excludes all exercise of civil authority about divine worship and ordinances, confining him to the use of advice and example in suppressing all blasphemies and errors, preventing or reforming all corruptions and abuses in worship or discipline, and in taking order to have all the ordinances of God administered and observed. The abuse which is committed upon the confession of faith is not less glaring than the departure from its doctrine. The evident tendency of condescending upon these particulars, of using the words of the confession and affixing the reader's attention upon them by printing them in italics, is to make him believe that the synod is still adhering to the doctrine of that book upon the article in question. Yet there cannot be a more glaring contradiction of the doctrine laid down in that part of the Confession of Faith than what is taught by the Synod. For the limited sense imposed upon the words is not only what the compilers of the Confession would have rejected, but it is a sense which it was, the express design of that paragraph, to condemn. This must be apparent to anyone who will take the trouble to examine it, as it stands in Confession, Chapter 23, Section 3. The design of that section is to explain the power and authority of the civil magistrate respecting religion. In the first part of it they mention some things to which his authority does not extend. They then go on in the latter part to state some things to which his authority reaches in opposition to those who denied the magistrate's power about religion. And they say, yet he hath authority quote, 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, etc. But the synod cut off the words he hath authority, which give meaning to all that follows, and teach that he hath no authority in those matters, but is limited to the use of his own advice and example. By the way, the author's reference is to the original Westminster Confession of Faith as it was written and not in the edited versions which are in use by various churches today. After having thus excluded all exercise of civil authority from the settlement of religious worship and ordinances, after having restricted magistrates from disposing of the nation's property for the spread of the gospel and the support of a gospel ministry, It is surely a farce, it is something worse than a farce, to pretend that the Synod do not enter into the question respecting the lawfulness or unlawfulness of civil establishments of religion. Let us now contrast these sentiments of the Synod with the doctrine maintained on this head by the Protestant and Reformed churches. These harmoniously agree in declaring as with one mouth that civil authority is not limited to the secular affairs of men and that the public care and advancement of religion is a principal part of the official duty of magistrates. A few extracts from their public confession will clearly establish this. The first confession of Switzerland says, quote, seeing that every magistrate is of God, his chief duty, except it please him to exercise tyranny, consisteth in this, to defend religion from all blasphemy, to promote it, and, as the prophet teaches out of the word of the Lord, to see it put in practice as far as lies in him. In this matter, the first place is given to the pure and free preaching of the Word of God, the instructing of the youth of citizens, right and diligent teaching in schools, lawful discipline, a liberal provision for the ministers of the Church, and an attentive care of the poor." The latter confession, which was expressly approved by the Church of Scotland and most of the Reformed Churches, That is, the Confession of Switzerland teaches, quote, that magistracy, of whatever sort it be, is ordained of God Himself for the peace and tranquility of mankind, so that the magistracy ought to have the chief place in the world. If he be an adversary to the Church, he may greatly hinder and disturb it. But if he be a friend and member of the Church, he is a most profitable member, and may excellently aid and advance it. His principal duty is to procure and maintain peace and public tranquility. which, doubtless, he will never do more happily than when he is seasoned with the fear of God and true religion, particularly when he shall, after the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, advance the preaching of the truth and the pure unadulterated faith, shall extirpate falsehood and all superstition, impiety and idolatry, and shall defend the church of God. For, indeed, we teach that the care of religion doth chiefly appertain to the holy magistrate." The Confession of Bohemia, called also the Confession of the Waldenses, says, The Christian magistrate ought also to be a partaker and, as it were, a minister of the power of the Lamb. Jesus Christ, whom God hath in our nature made Lord and King of kings, that kings of the earth, who in times past had been heathen, might come under the power of the Lamb, give their glory unto the church, and become nurses of it, which began to be fulfilled when they received the Christian religion. The Christian magistrate is peculiarly taught by this authority of his to promote the truth of the Holy Gospel, etc. whereunto the second psalm doth exhort magistrates, and now ye kings understand, etc. The Confession of Saxony declares that, quote, the word of God doth in general teach this concerning the power of the magistrate. First, that God wills that the magistrate, without all doubt, should sound forth the voice of the moral law among men, according to the Ten Commandments, or law natural, by laws forbidding idolatry and blasphemies, as well as murders, theft, etc. For well has it been said of old, the magistrate is a keeper of the law, i.e. of the first and second table, as concerning discipline and good order. This ought to be their special care, of kingdoms and their rulers, to hear and embrace the true doctrine of the Son of God, and to cherish the churches, according to Psalm 2 and 24 and Isaiah 49. and kings and queens shall be thy nurses, i.e., let commonwealths be nurses of the church, let them give entertainment to the church and to godly studies." The Dutch Confession, approved also by the French Church, teaches that it, quote, is the duty of magistrates not only to be careful to preserve the civil government, but also to endeavor that the ministry be preserved, that all idolatry and counterfeit worship be abolished, the kingdom of Antichrist brought down, and that the kingdom of Christ be enlarged. in fine, that it is their duty to bring it to pass, that the holy word of the gospel be preached everywhere, that all men may serve God purely and freely according to the prescribed will of his word." And the French Confession declares that God hath, quote, delivered the sword into the magistrate's hand, that so sins committed against both tables of God's law, not only against the second, but the first also, may be suppressed, unquote. In the confession of the English congregation in Geneva, which was approved and used in Scotland before the establishment of the Reformation here, it is said, quote, Besides this ecclesiastical discipline, I acknowledge to belong to this church a politic magistrate, who ministereth to every man justice, defending the good and punishing the evil, to whom we must render honor and obedience in all things, which are not contrary to the word of God. And as Moses, Ezechias, Josias, and other godly rulers purge the church of God from superstition and idolatry, so the defense of Christ's church appertaineth to the Christian magistrates, against all idolaters and heretics, as Papists and Abaptists, with such like limbs of Antichrist." The Scots Confession says, quote, Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion doth appertain, 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, Josaphat, Ezechias, Josias, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case may be espied." The second book of discipline declares that, quote, Although all the members of the Kirk beholden every one in their vocation, and according thereto to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ, so far as lieth in their power, yet chiefly Christian princes and other magistrates are holden to do the same. For they are called in the Scriptures nourishers of the Kirk, for so much as by them it is, or at least ought to be maintained, fostered, upholden, and defended against all that would procure the hurt thereof. So it pertains to the office of a Christian magistrate to make laws and constitutions agreeable to God's word. for advancement of the Kirk, and policy thereof, without usurping anything that pertains not to the civil sword, but belongs to the offices that are merely ecclesiastical, as is the ministry of the word and sacraments, using of ecclesiastical discipline, and the spiritual execution thereof, or any part of the power of the spiritual keys which our Master gave to the apostles, and their true successors. The Westminster Confession teaches, that Christian magistrates in the managing of their office, quote, ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace. That 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 they are 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." Again, that is the original Westminster Confession of Faith edition. The larger catechism teaches that, quote, the charge of keeping the Sabbath is more especially directed to governors of families and other superiors because they are bound not only to keep it themselves but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge, unquote. Also that in the second petition we pray among other blessings connected with the advancement of Christ's kingdom that, quote, the church may be furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances purged from corruption countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate." Such is the harmony of doctrine in the Protestant churches on this head, expressed in their confessions and public formularies drawn from the Word of God, a harmony which deserves great attention and from which none should rashly depart. From this doctrine There was no deviation in the original testimony in public papers of the secession. In adopting the Confession of Faith and other standards of the Church of Scotland, no exception was ever stated on the subject. This appears from the second and third questions in the old formula, and from the first, second, and sixth articles of the assertatory part of the testimony concerning worship, government, and discipline. On the contrary, the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith and larger catechism as received by the Church of Scotland is expressly approved. In the Declaration in Defense of the Associate Presbytery's Principles Respecting the Present Civil Government, or Answers to Mr. Nairn, after laying down the principles upon which the magistrate's power is founded and can be defended, it is added, quote, There is nothing especially allotted and allowed unto magistrates by the word of God and the confession of their formed churches, but what can be so argued for and defended, unquote. If we have recourse to the writings of those who are concerned in the compilation of the public papers of the secession, or who have vindicated them, we will find that they maintain the common Presbyterian doctrine respecting the magistrate's power about religion, and condemn the opposite doctrine as a hurtful error. Mr. William Wilson of Perth, in his defense, pronounces the legal or civil establishment enjoyed by the Church of Scotland good in itself, although it was at that time abused. We will readily agree, says he, that the countenance of civil authority is not necessary to the being of the Church, though it is very profitable and useful to her outward peaceable being. As also that the countenance and protection of the civil magistrate, given under the various judicial bodies of the Church in the faithful discharge of their duty, is a great outward blessing, promised unto her in New Testament times. Having mentioned a number of the peculiar and distinguishing principles of the Anabaptists and Brownists, among which is the following, they affirmed that the Christian magistrate had no right to meddle at all with any matters of religion, and they pleaded for a universal toleration under the specious pretense of liberty of conscience. Mr. Wilson adds, quote, Against the above extravagant principles, our Reformed divines employed their pens and discovered the contrariety of them to the Holy Scriptures and their affinity to several of the gross principles of the ancient Donatists and Novatians. The above are the principles that the most part of our divines cited by the author of the essay do reason against, and the principles of the seceding ministers are as far distant from them as east from west. Again, quote, the greatest deceits have been brought into the world under the name or notion of new lights. It is to be regretted, continues he, that such new lights have of late appeared in our horizon, who plead against the establishment of confessions of faith, etc., by the laws of the land. If our author had employed his pen against such new lights, providing he had done it to purpose, he had thereby done more service to our Reformation rights and our Presbyterian interests than he has done by his essay on separation. His antagonist, Mr. Curry, having charged his heeders with one of the principles held by one Roger Williams, Mr. Wilson answers, quote, But how comes our author to conceal his other principle mentioned by Mr. Mather in the place quoted by him? his violent urging that the civil magistrate might not punish breaches of the first table in the laws of the Ten Commandments. Our author has no doubt his reasons for not mentioning this sectarian principle mentioned by Mr. Williams. However, according to Mr. Mather and his history, the above principles bred as much disturbance in New England as that which our author mentions. Mr. Alexander Moncrief of Abernethy inculcates the same doctrine in his writings. Quote, Christian magistrates, in their characters, are to maintain and defend the faith in Christ. We do not mean that they are to propagate the religion of Jesus by sword, fire, and faggot, but that Christian states are to employ their power and authority for support of the worship and service of God, as well as for regulating our behavior to our fellow creatures. Both precepts and examples under the Old Testament are strong and clear to this purpose. And these were not temporary laws, but founded upon perpetual and moral grounds, such as the peace of societies, the good of men's souls, the duty of all dependent beings to pay homage to their Creator in the manner Himself has prescribed, and the duty of all magistrates, the ministers, and delegates of the great God to vindicate and maintain His honor among men. No doubt magistrates have mistaken error for truth and made a bad use of their power upon many occasions. But if the abuse of a power take away the lawful use of it, mankind will be in a strange and unheard of situation." The same learned and pious author, in another part of his works, gives a very succinct statement of the difference between civil and ecclesiastical authority, and of the power which Presbyterians allow to magistrates respecting synods and matters ecclesiastical in opposition to both Erastian and sectarian extremes. With this doctrine, his son, Mr. William Moncrief of Eloah, agrees, It has been proved, says he, by such divines as have wrote against the Erastians, that although the Christian magistrate has a power circa sacra, about holy things, yet he has no power in sacris, in holy things, that it belongs to the church to judge of religious matters, and the magistrate is to strengthen the church's hands by giving the civil sanction so far as is proper to their determinations." Mr. William Campbell of Ceres, after quoting chapter 23, section 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, adds the following explication. From this quotation of our confession, we may notice what power the magistrate hath about the Church, both negatively and positively. 1. Negatively, he hath not a power in sacred things, the power of dispensing the word and sacraments, nor the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Two, positively, he hath a power about sacred things. He is to be a nursing father to the church, to use that power given him of God in her defense. Nevertheless, he is not to use this power of himself, but that he may employ it for the good of the church. He is to call her synods and councils, that they may go about their work, at which he may be present. And so his proper work is to ratify by civil sanction what they determine and conclude." Mr. David Wilson of London says, quote, It is not strange that those who are of opinion that there can be no such thing as a national church under the New Testament should deny the warrantableness of national covenanting. But if the rulers or representatives of any nation or kingdom, with the concurrence of the greater part of the people, shall embrace the Christian faith, authorize the profession of the true religion, and agree to promote the same to the utmost of their power, subordinating all their civil and secular interests to the glory of God, may not this be called a national church? And can it be said that it is unwarrantable for any nation to do so? Or that such a thing can never be expected to take place under the Christian dispensation? If this were true, I do not see how the following prophecies could ever have an accomplishment. Look at Isaiah, chapter 55, verse 5. Jeremiah 4, verse 2. Revelation 11, verse 15. Open breaches of the law of God, when they are not punished by magistrates and men in authority, but are either patronized and encouraged, or tolerated and connived at by them, become national sins, and it is just that God should punish them by national judgments. The open violation of the law of God shows a daring contempt of his authority, and when no proper check is given to it by rulers and magistrates, the guilt of it is imputable to them. The guilt of sins committed by a people is chargeable upon rulers and magistrates. And when they do not take care to have the people subject to their authority instructed in the principles of religion, that they may know what is sin and what is duty, the danger of committing the former, and the many advantages that attend and follow upon a conscientious performance of the latter." That is a quotation from Wilson's Discourses on National Calamities Procured by National Sins. Mr. Adam Gibb of Edinburgh, in his examination of a late survey, vindicates the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, Section 3. As to the charge of Erastianism brought against it by the Surveyor, he says he might as well have charged it with Mohammedanism, and his allegation that it is inconsistent with itself, he asserts, will never be able to prove. Quote, for clearing the principles of the associate synod and of all the reformed churches with regard to civil establishments of religion, unquote, Mr. Gibb lays down a number of propositions in which he guards, on the one hand, the natural rights of men and the independence of the church in respect of all her peculiar and intrinsic concerns, and on the other, the propriety of an established profession of religion with public profession for the officers and ordinances of the church. Quote, is there no difference betwixt these two? An establishing a national profession of religion and a compelling all the subjects to embrace it by the terror of civil penalties? The establishment now spoken of is to be considered as a bestowing of additional privileges upon some, not as a detracting from the natural and common privileges of any. And though the bestowing of temporal encouragements or advantages upon the Church has been carried too far unto a corrupting of her officers and ordinances, yet this says nothing against such a measure thereof, as is truly serviceable to the interests of religion, while the civil power can also refuse or withdraw these as they appear undeserved without any encroachment on their natural privileges. The wicked import and effect of this new scheme is to be considered. And one, it means an abolishing of all scripture precepts, promises, and prophecies about the state of the gospel church with regard to civil powers. For according to this scheme, kings are not to be wise now, nor are the judges of the earth to be instructed that they should serve the Lord the King upon the holy hill of Zion. No kings in their kingly state should fall down before him. No nations in their national state should serve him. It is to be of no consequence to the church that the Lord hath said, Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers. Nor is it to be admitted of, according to any intelligible use of the words, that the kingdoms of this world should become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ. This new scheme is for abolishing all obligation upon Christians to manage their secular callings, and it advantages in a way of homage to the Lord Christ. Whatever opportunity and power any Christian man has from his civil station for favoring or promoting the interest of Christ in the gospel church, so as may be still agreeable to her nature, he should reckon it his chief business thus to improve the same, in opposition to a heathenish way of managing the concerns of that nation. And this must be principally incumbent upon civil rulers from the principal measure of their opportunity and power. To imagine that civil rulers professing religion should not use their power and influence in behalf of the religion which they profess? Or that they can otherwise put a due value upon it and be truly in earnest about it? This is one of the Surveyor's chimerical notions, which never can be nor ought to be exemplified in the world." Some people, says Mr. Morrison of Norham, may, quote, perhaps be shocked at hearing of a legal establishment of religion as if it were an anti-Christian abomination. But there is no manner of ground for the heinous charge, provided always the establishment be not formed on the anti-Christian plan, nor are we to be presently alarmed as if all it must needs be anti-Christian, which is boldly opposed under that odious character. It is no unusual thing for Satan to transform himself into an angel of light, and under the cover of appearing to condemn a thing, to seek to establish it in another shape. Considering the Christian magistrate as magistrate, the same author asserts, quote, There is no doubt, but particularly in this capacity, it is incumbent upon him to do whatever is here, i.e., in the Confession, chapter 23, section 3, said to be his duty to do. And among other things, it is competent to, and consequently incumbent on the magistrate, to provide the Church in an honorable patrimony, and to protect her in the possession and enjoyment of it against all invaders whatsoever, for the support of schools and colleges, in order to the training up of young men for the work of the ministry, and for the maintenance of those who are employed in the ministry of the Church. It is further competent to, and consequently incumbent upon, the magistrate to see and provide that his subjects be not left destitute of a faithful gospel ministry, that the time shall come when the kings of the earth shall thus honor the Lord Christ is secured to the church by manifold promises. See Psalm 72, verses 10 and 11. Isaiah 49, verse 23. Revelation 11, verse 15. Please go to take number two. free newsletter and a complimentary copy of our large discount mail-order Christian book catalog specializing in Reformation resources contact Stillwaters Revival Books on the internet we are at www.swrv.com By email, we're at swrb at swrb dot com. Our mailing address is 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton. That's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N. Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B. Canada, T-6-L-3-T-5. By phone, After February of 1999, our area code will change. We can be reached by phone at 780-450-3730. And keep in mind that William Hetherington, commenting on the Solemn League and Covenant, the epitome of Second Reformation attainments, in his History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1856 edition, page 134, writes, No man who is able to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and aim, will deny it to be the wisest, the sublimest, and the most sacred document ever framed by uninspired men.