A very warm welcome and good evening to everyone this evening. Let's begin our time tonight by coming to the throne of grace. Let's stand as we pray. Our blessed and eternal God, we praise thee and we thank thee for thy many, many mercies to us today. We thank thee that thou hast renewed thy mercies to us this morning, that throughout this day we have tasted and seen that the Lord is good. Heavenly Father, we come before Thee with thanksgiving, especially mindful that even the least of the mercies or truth that Thou has shown to us, we are not worthy to receive. Heavenly Father, as we bow before Thee, we thank Thee most of all for that provision of provisions, that fountain of all fountains in the Lord Jesus Christ. We thank Thee, Heavenly Father, that He was the fountain open for sin and for uncleanness. We thank Thee, gracious God, that even tonight as we would come and we would contemplate thy works through the past and we would consider as well the truths of thy word. Thou hast promised to thy people through thy son to grant them light, to guide them, to be their counselor. And we ask that thou wouldst be such to us even tonight. Teach us the way that we should go. Help us, we pray, gracious God, to walk in those paths that are pleasing unto thee. And as we take up these themes tonight, we pray that Thou wouldst teach us, even by these things, to walk more like the Lord Jesus Christ. We praise Thee and we thank Thee for each one gathered here this evening. We pray that they all would know Thy rich blessings. So we ask all in Jesus' blessed name. Amen. Please be seated. I want to begin our time this evening just by reading a few verses from 2 Kings. It's 2nd Kings, chapter 3. We'll commence our reading there at verse 9. 2nd Kings, the 3rd chapter, and starting there at verse 9. Hear the word of our God. So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom. And they fetched a compass of seven days journey, and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them. And the king of Israel said, alas, that the Lord hath called these three kings together to deliver them into the hand of Moab. But Jehoshaphat said, is there not here a prophet of the Lord? that we may inquire of the Lord by him. And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, here is Elijah, the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. And Jehoshaphat said, the word of the Lord is with him. So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him. And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? Get thee to the prophets of thy father and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay, for the Lord hath called these three kings together to deliver them into the hand of Moab. And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, Before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the King of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee." We'll stop our reading there at the 14th verse. Well, this evening we continue our study of the first testimony of the Reformed Presbytery. This is, of course, of the testimony that was written and ratified in the year 1761. And we're continuing that part of the testimony that reviews what is principally its historical witness. And so as we were together before, we saw that this testimony has, if you like, a kind of survey of what has gone in the past. And we're really continuing that survey. But I want to, I suppose, begin our time this evening by saying that, in one sense, we are doing that. But in another sense, we're moving somewhat beyond. Tonight, we're going to take up not only the historical context in which this testimony was written, we're also going to consider the theological principles that really underpin the Reformed Presbytery's political theology. And so in one sense, yes, this is a lecture, if you like, on the historical part of the testimony. But in another, we are also transitioning now to what is that doctrinal part, the theological statements that are found in the document. And on that note, I also want to preface, I suppose, my comments by saying that what we're taking up this evening, I have meditated on since I was 16 years old. I'm not saying that to say that I've achieved some kind of expert status. I'm saying that because even though I've spent those years on this subject, I still find myself rather perplexed. And it's not even just the position of the Reformed Presbytery that is difficult to grasp. It's even the very questions that are asked, not so much the answers. And so this evening, I really will be raising things with you that I think I need to admit at the start are difficult for us to grapple with. There are a number of reasons why I think these things are difficult for our generation, but putting those aside for a moment, I think it's necessary for me to say to you that because these things are difficult, we need patience. I think there's a temptation when we come to this kind of theme that the first thing we want to do is, well, we want to get practical. We want to ask, well, how does this or how should this influence what I do? And that's a good and a necessary disposition. I don't want to fault anyone for having that. But what I want to say to you is we're not there yet. Tonight, we won't really have an opportunity, simply because we don't have time to talk about the practical outworkings of what we take up this evening. That, God willing, will be our next lecture. Instead, tonight, we will be focusing on the fundamentals, the foundational principles that from which we then may be able to discuss practice. Now, what that requires of us this evening is patience. I know I've already said that to you, but I think it's necessary for me to stress it. These are perhaps new things to you. If they're not new to you, they're probably new to someone in the room this evening. Patience is really, really necessary in this work. So I want to go through this slowly, but I do want to give as much justice as I can to what this document sets forth. So just in terms of review, what are we dealing with here? Well, we're dealing with a testimony. And you remember that we have something of a working definition when we come to testimony or testimony bearing. And the first thing is we recognize we're dealing with an ecclesiastical document. That's a document written, an official document written in the church and for the church's identity and her witness and her generation. A testimony, and this is our working definition, is an apologetic declaration of a particular church's distinctive identity, jurisdiction, and principles. If I can summarize that for you as a simple question, the purpose of the testimony is simply to answer Why do we exist as an independent body? In other words, why are we not part of another church? Why do we exist in our historical context? And why do we have a right to continue to exist in the present? Those are the kinds of questions that a testimony sets out to answer. Now, I think it's important for me to remind you that the testimony we're dealing with was not the first testimony, that is, the first document of this genre. The associate presbytery that we'll be talking about later this evening, in 1733, seceded from the Church of Scotland and very quickly had their own testimony. And the definition of testimony that we are using can be applied to this document as well. That was 1736. The reformed presbytery is formed in 1743. And almost 20 years later, the Reformed Presbytery finally omits the document that we're taking up this evening. So this is not the first testimony. This is not the first document of this genre. But it is pretty close to it. And in many ways, it parallels the pattern set forth by the Associate Presbytery or by the seceders. File that away, just for our time this evening, and we'll come back to it. Just to review what we covered last time we were together, and very, very quickly, you remember that the first part of this testimony is principally historical. There are theological elements to it. We can acknowledge that. But principally, the goal of the first testimony, the first part of the testimony, rather, is to set forth a historical account of the Church of Scotland. And so you remember that as we were meditating on these historical events together, We divided them into three basic categories. First of all, the testimony deals with pre-Reformation Scotland. And pre-Reformation Scotland was, of course, pagan for a time. But very early on, the Lord, in his mercy and his grace, visited the land with the gospel. And in so doing, you remember the testimony reminds us that when the gospel came to Scotland, first of all, the church was not corrupt. She had pure doctrine, she had pure worship, she had pure government. And also you remember that when the gospel came to pre-reformation Scotland, the civil magistrate in the various parts of Scotland and then eventually the High King himself was also very careful to support and to sustain the church in his civil capacity. But of course, it wasn't always so. Around really the 12th century, The Pope of Rome exercises greater and greater influence in Scotland until finally the Scottish church, and like every other king in Europe, the Scottish government, was under the sway of the Roman Antichrist. And so you have that there, the Roman pontiff's miter over the crown. In 1517, of course, a day that we should know all very, very well. was the day whenever the gospel came back, even with great power, in the Reformation. And so from Luther's Reformation, and then eventually from Calvin's Reformation, the gospel comes back to Scotland. And you'll notice that one of the things that immediately takes place, and the testimony is careful to remind us of this, is that the Reformation touched both church and state. So just like the Roman Antichrist had corrupted both institutions, church and state, the Reformation sought to reform both. And again, the civil magistrate there functions in the First Reformation as a help to the church and really to support her reformation both internally and her reformation of society. Now, this continues. And it really reaches a high point, if you like, in the year 1596. At this particular time, Presbyterian church government is ratified and really has its greatest exercise throughout the land. You also have, in that particular year, a renewing of the covenant of 1580-1581. And the renewing of that covenant was, again, binding this nation afresh to her duties to pursue reformation in church and state. And so the high point of the First Reformation, you can say, took place in 1596 under the reign of James I, VI of Scotland. But in that selfsame year, things begin to change. And the testimony is very careful to remind us that there was a significant change that had occurred. Under the Jacobean reforms, again, Presbyterianism was established. But very shortly before James moves into England in 1603 to become both King of England and King of Scotland, he begins to press for changes, again, both in church and state. And what this does, ultimately, in its end, is to dismantle Presbyterianism and to impose Episcopacy. Now, what is Episcopacy? Well, it's the government by bishops. So instead of Presbyterians, instead of peer elders arranged in a hierarchy of courts, you have bishops appointed by the king governing the Church of Scotland. And of course, the whole point of this was, in many ways, so that James could exercise as much control as possible over the church. This is a marked declension, a marked period of defection in the church's history. And the testimony presents it so. This is a bleak moment in the Church of Scotland. But in 1638, things begin to change. The covenant that I mentioned to you before, the covenant of 1580, 1581, is renewed. as there's a groundswell support for returning to the purity of the First Reformation and even advancing it. And so the so-called reforms of James and then later of Charles are turned away, they're rescinded, and the Church of Scotland comes not only to reform or purity, but even by their own admission, they exceeded. It is genuinely a Second Reformation that we have from the year 1638 to roughly, if you like, the year 1659. Importantly, in 1638, as I said to you, the 1580-1581 covenant was renewed, which again solemnly bound Scotland afresh to pursue reformation in every sphere of life. But in 1643, all three of the kingdoms in Great Britain They enter into covenant very much to the same effect, that together, in their various jurisdictions, they would pursue reformation in total. That is, again, over church and state. The testimony is careful to remind us that these documents are very, very important. And one of the things that the testimony also is very careful to remind us of is that their importance lies primarily here, at least for our purposes this evening. in that these documents become, and I quote, part of the fundamental constitution of these lands. What does that mean? Well, again, if you remember our time before, you remember that in the year 1650, and again, on the 1st of January, 1651, Charles II had to sign these covenants in order to come to the throne. He could not exercise power without taking hold of the covenants and genuinely pursuing the reformation defined therein. And so these lands, in their fundamental constitution, have required both church and state to pursue reformation. In the year 1660, Charles II, despite signing the covenants, returns and immediately does all that he can to overturn the work of the Second Reformation and in many ways also infringing on the work of the First Reformation as well. Now, you'll notice as you were looking at the bottom of the screen there that once again, you have the crown over the bishop's mitre. And the idea there is that again, Charles II, like his grandfather, James VI, he wanted control of the Church of Scotland. And in very many ways, he succeeded. He also centered most of his malice upon those who were, quote unquote, covenanters, those who fervently pursued the Reformation defined by the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. What this resulted in, of course, is incredible bloodshed. By the time you get to 1688, 18,000 covenanters are either exiled, fined to the point of incredible poverty, or executed. in the fields, in the grass market, or in other places. This is a period of intense persecution. But importantly, for our purposes tonight, it's also necessary for us to recognize that those who were covenanters in this period of time, they bound themselves together in 1681 in what we would call the United Societies. And so what they were saying, essentially, was that the Church of Scotland that was similarly recognized was not, in fact, the Church of Scotland, as defined by the Reformation constitutions. And so she remained, these United Societies, aloof from the civil established church. Also, the United Societies were very clear. Because Charles II, and then later his brother James VII, because they had fundamentally overturned the very constitution which brought them into power, they were tyrants. In other words, because they were not pursuing the ends of the covenant, they had no right, no rightful claim to the throne. And so the claim of the United Societies was twofold. They were saying, in very clear terms, that the constitution of the present civilly established Church of Scotland was not, in fact, legitimate. And also, the present government, so organized under Charles II and James VII, it too was illegitimate, not properly constitute. That brings us then to the final part that we looked at last time we were together, and that is what we call the revolution, or the Williamite Revolution of 1688, and really coming to its climax in the year 1690. James VII, he was an avowed Roman Catholic. has a son. This creates a crisis in Britain. Having a son meant potentially that there would be a succession of Roman Catholic kings in the land. This, of course, mobilizes Protestants in England, Scotland, and Ireland as well to overturn the Jacobean throne, which they do successfully through William and Mary. And as soon as the revolution is, in a sense, consummate, immediately the question is, well, how will the national churches be constitute? In other words, what will be the policy of the crown with regard to church government and worship and so forth? And what was decided in all of these nations was that each nation that had a proclivity toward one particular government or discipline would be able to enjoy that particular government or discipline. So what does that translate into? Well, it translates into England being Anglican, or Episcopalian more accurately. Likewise, Ireland. And Scotland gets to enjoy Presbyterianism. That was the Williamite Revolution settlement for each nation in summary. But one of the things the United Societies point out is that in many ways, the Williamite settlement simply exchanged the bishop's miter underneath the crown for, if you like, a kind of Presbyterian submission to the crown. We don't have time this evening to go into the great detail. In fact, I would encourage you to go back if you're interested to look at our comments before on the ways in which the United Societies made that argument. But in a sense, this is where we left. The Church of Scotland, yes, she's no longer under bishops. She enjoys a kind of Presbyterianism under William and Mary and under his successors. But fundamentally, the United Societies claim the Church of Scotland again, as defined by her Reformation constitutions, was not the civilly established Church of Scotland under William and under his successors. Importantly, in the year 1692, the United Societies also go and do something very similar to what they did in previous decades. And they say that because William and Mary have refused have refused the covenant obligations that are part of the fundamental constitution of these nations, their government too is illegitimate. So, that's where we leave our time in our last lecture. And that brings us to our work this evening. The section that we take up tonight from the Act Declaration of Testimony is very much, of course, tied to the history that I've just given to you in summary. But it's important for us to understand in what ways. Now, I said to you already that the Church of Scotland, as it was civilly established, of course, was the majority ecclesiastical body in the kingdom. But parallel to them was that body of people who remained outside of the civil establishment. Again, these are the United Societies. And for our purposes tonight, it's so important for me to stress again that what the United Societies were saying was not that the Revolution Church was not a true Church of Christ. For instance, the United Societies would recognize the ordination and even the baptisms that were performed in the Revolution Church. It was a true, visible Church of Christ. The problem, though, the United Societies were quick to tell us, was that it was not the Church of Scotland as defined by her Reformation Deeds and Constitutions. They believed that because they still held to the principles of the Second Reformation, they were the true successors to what is called, again, the Reformation Church of Scotland. So they never joined. And it's not like the United Societies separated from the Revolution Church. They always were distinct. Now, that brings us to one very important figure. There was a man by the name of John Macmillan. He was 29 when James Rennick was executed, James Rennick being the last minister to be executed of the United Societies. At the time of the revolution, he decided that he would join the revolution establishment, even though formerly John Macmillan had been a member of the United Societies, And his purpose, and it's very clear in his subsequent history, his purpose of joining the Revolution Church was the thought that perhaps he could reform from within. But as you see there, friction quickly manifests. He was ordained in the year 1700. But in 1702, whenever the Church of Scotland wants to have a public fast and encourages the ministers there in their various parishes to lecture on the National Covenant of Scotland, John MacMillan went a step further. With the permission of his session, he went further and also lectured on the Solemn League and Covenant. Why is that important? It's important because, again, in the beginning of the 18th century, there were incredibly fraught debates. It was a very tumultuous time for everyone. The revolution settlements were not a reified fact at that particular point. Many of the Episcopalians were claiming that that Scotland could not be Presbyterian because Presbyterianism bred anarchy. And so the Revolution Church of Scotland was very careful, very careful not to play into the Episcopalian narrative. How did they do that? Well, they wanted to focus primarily on Scotland itself and forget all of the ways in which Scotland bound itself with the other nations together as Great Britain to pursue reformation. So by leaving on the solemn Lincoln Covenant, this was a way, in many ways, to fail, to give the Episcopalians ammunition. John Macmillan believed, though, that the solemn Lincoln Covenant was still binding on Scotland. A covenant abound, by the way, these nations to pursue the extirpation of prelacy, government by bishops, among many other things. This creates incredible trouble for John Macmillan. By the way, one of his chiefists, Opponents was a man by the name of Andrew Cameron. Andrew Cameron was the brother of both Michael and Richard Cameron. Richard Cameron was a martyr, as was his brother Michael at Erasmus in the year 1681. Andrew Cameron opposed John Macmillan furiously. And in the midst of this conflict, it becomes very clear that the Church of Scotland, in John Macmillan's eyes, is not desires to pursue reformation according to the Second Reformation at all. And so in 1603-1604, the controversy ultimately proves immovable. The Presbyterian deposes him. And Macmillan then spends two years in discussion with the United Societies. Where's he going to go? Here's a minister who's been deposed. And the Church of Scotland, the Revolution Church, has no desire to see somebody committed to the Reformation principles within her ministry. And so for two years, John McMillan engages in discussions with the United Societies. And finally, he does join them again. What that means is that for the first time in 16 years, the United Societies has a minister. Her last ministers being Alexander Shields, Thomas Linning, and others. who went back into the Revolution Church after the death of James Rennick, which is a positive thing, meaning that there is now a minister among the societies. But you might ask the question, why did it take John Macmillan two years to join the societies? Well, he tells us in 1706, whenever everything finally comes to its end, he tells us that it was not until then that he was clear, and I quote, of the duty of disowning the existing civil government. It's a very, very important line. What John McMillan was saying, very pointedly, was that in those two years he was wrestling with the society's position that the current revolution, the current revolution government, and again its successors, were legitimate, or rather illegitimate. John of Milan does come to the position of the societies, and in a big way. In 1712, he leads the United Societies in the Arkansas Declaration of 1712. And there, friend, it's very clear. The United Societies not only have maintained their position with regard to the Williamite Revolution, not only are they saying that the Church of Scotland itself is illegitimate, that in the sense that it cannot claim to be the Reformation Church of Scotland, It also is saying that the civil government in these lands are not legitimate. Constitutionally, their flaws are so great that they are not to be considered, and I quote, the ordinance of God. That's John MacMillan's position. Now, very quickly, not only are there difficulties with John MacMillan and the Revolution Church, in 1733 and beforehand, there is a growing difficulty among some Some of these issues that are becoming controversial are things like the free offer of the gospel, like the relationship between the Christian and the law of God, as well as another and very vexing issue, and that's the subject of patronage in the church. In the Church of Scotland, in the Revolution Church that is, there are a group of ministers there that ultimately are pushed, as they would put it, out of the revolution establishment. And so in 1733, these ones leave, and they form what we would call the associate presbytery. You remember, this is that same body that we're talking about before as the body to first emit a testimony like our own. In 1733, the associate presbytery, or what you could also call the seceders, were formed. And I want to quote to you just very briefly one of the reasons why, or rather how, they left the Church of Scotland. We still hold communion with all and everyone who desire with us to adhere to the principles of the true Presbyterian covenant of Church of Scotland. We are obliged to make a secession from the prevailing party of the established church and that we can have no ministerial communion with them till they see their sins and mistakes and amend them." And it's very important you recognize that in this act of protest, what they were saying was, it's very much what the United Society said. While you can acknowledge that the Revolution Church of Scotland was a true particular church of Christ, it was not. It was not that church defined by the Reformation constitutions. And the acclaim of the Associate Presbytery was that they were that continuing church. Now, that's all fine. Until in the year 1642, There's another difficulty, and this time not within the Revolution Church, but within the secession. A man by the name of Thomas Nairn was a minister. He was first ordained in the Church of Scotland, the Revolution Church, in 1710. He came to the Associate Presbytery in 1737, again over the issue of patronage, that is, the power of heritage to have the power of nominations, and even to exclude men from the ministry by fayade. However, when he joins the Associate Presbytery, things very quickly manifest that he's not entirely of their mind. How so? Well, in 1742, the Associate Presbytery believes that it's their duty to renew the covenants. Again, a very laudable thing, something very much already patterned for them by the Arkansas Renovation of 1712 by the United Societies. Whenever the associate presbytery, or the seceders, intend to do that, they also intend to include among the list of humiliations, or rather things for which they ought to be humiliated, is this. We desire to be humbled for the dangerous extreme that some have gone into of impugning the present civil authority over these nations and subjection thereunto in lawful commands on account of the want, or rather the lack of those qualifications which magistrates ought to have. according to the word of God in our covenants, even though they allow us free exercise of our religion and are not manifestly unhinging the liberties of the kingdom." So, what are they saying? Well, they're saying that there's this group of people in Scotland, by the way, they're not named, but these are the people they're thinking about, that the Associated Presbyterian says are gone to a dangerous extreme. What is that extreme, they tell us? Well, the extreme being that they disclaim the legitimacy of the revolution's civil government. So the Associated Presbyterian wants to make this one of the sins for which they ought to be humbled. Thomas Nairn descends. In fact, he goes on a step further and says, rather than creating something new, we ought simply to follow the pattern of the Arkansas Declaration and Renovation of 1712. Which, that declaration, by the way, was very clear, as I said to you already, that this present civil government was illegitimate. In the end, what happens is the seceders fail to persuade Thomas Nairn to abandon these principles. A committee is established to deal with Nairn, and the committee ultimately deposes him. Importantly, Nairn narrates the situation. He says, the committee never touched the true state of the question. What was it, he says? Well, namely, whether these presently possessed of the civil power in Britain and Ireland be lawful magistrates according to our covenants. What Nairn is saying there is that this is the principal matter. As far as it concerns him, he and the seceders, the Associated Presbytery, are agreed on everything else. But the principal point of distinction is this, the question of the legitimacy of the present civil powers. And here I need to remind you of what was John McMillan's great battle within himself before he could join the United Societies. It was the same question. Importantly, folks, importantly, this is what it meant to be reformed Presbyterian. What it meant in this particular context was to disclaim the legitimacy of the present civil powers in Britain and Ireland. And that's what Thomas Nairn is saying. And so what happens, of course, is he, like John McMillan before, will join the United Societies. And in so doing, having two ministers now, the United Societies are transformed into the Reformed Presbytery as constituted in 1743. At this particular time, there are a number of others who also join the Reformed Presbytery from the seceders, men like John Cuthbertson, Alexander Marshall. These two are persuaded that the present civil powers are illegitimate. And for that reason alone, for that reason alone, they join the Reformed Presbytery. Of course, this creates problems, now not between the Church of Scotland and the Reformed Presbytery, but now between the Associate Presbytery and the Reformed Presbytery. The first salvos come in this way. The Associate Presbytery publishes their answers to the reasons of dissent and secession by Thomas Nairn, and also with a declaration in defense of the Associate Presbytery's principles about the present civil government. That came out in 1743. There's another tract that came out by a man, not the minister, but by a man called William Wilson, a testimony deserted, which is also against the Reformed Presbytery. And the Reformed Presbytery respond again in 1743 with their short account of Thomas Nairn. And so a defense of their principles and also the actions of Thomas Nairn in seceding from the Secession Church. That is our historical context for this evening. I think it's important for us to recognize, before we go into the document itself, that the principal issue here in all of these secessions, if you like, is the issue of the legitimacy of the present civil powers. Now, as we take up this subject, first of all, I want to say that, again, this is where things become quite deep and things become quite strange, especially to our generation. And so what I need to do, I think, this evening is not to give you a kind of exhaustive survey of what the testimony says. I think it's more important for us at this stage, anyhow, to talk about general principles, fundamental principles that really gripped these men as they wrestled through the question. So first of all, I want to talk to you about the associate presbytery, or the seceders and their political theology. And I need to say this at the start. This portion of the testimony is going to tear to shreds the seceder position. But you shouldn't get the impression from that that there is, as it were, great amounts of daylight between the two positions. There wasn't. And this was acknowledged on all hands by seceders and by Reformed Presbyterians. Let me just give you a few examples that are mentioned for us here. The Act, Declaration, and Testimony tells us that they condemned, that is, the cedars condemned prolicy, that's government by bishops. And so they condemned the revolution settlement, at least at that point, because the revolution settlement for England established an episcopacy as it did for Ireland. The cedars were opposed to the legal securities given to the church, sorry, at the revolution because it overlooked the privileges that the church enjoyed from the year 1638 to 1650. The seceders also had incredible grief with the fact that the solemn oaths and covenant that were rescinded in 1661 remained untouched. In other words, the seceders were grieved by the fact that the civil magistrate had not had not rescinded the Act of Recessory and brought those covenants back as standing legal documents. And they go on to say, contrary to the reform practice, such were retained in places of public trust and military office as were enemies to reformation. And so what they were saying there was they also opposed the idea that somebody could hold office in Scotland even if he has no commitment to the reformed religion. These are seceded positions, by the way. The seceders condemned the gross toleration of error, they condemned the public observation of holy days, they condemned the repeal of the anti-witchcraft laws, and so on and so forth. To all of these things, the Reformed Presbyterian would happily say, Amen. Now, as you look at this, you'll notice that the seceders were careful to say that they saw these failures in the revolution government as sins. But there was something of a limitation. If I can quote Adam Gibb, who has saved one of the greatest exponents of seceder theology at this stage of the Associate Presbyterian's history, he puts it this way. He says, seceders believe that defection of a nation from reformation doth not deprive them of a right to choose civil magistrates for themselves. And that as subjection to them and obedience to their lawful commands continues a duty incumbent upon the minority who adhere still to the covenant of reformation. As also that these civil rights of the nation and their magistrates did neither arise from nor were innovated by the reformation once attained to. Now, I'm not going to spend time elucidating that particular phrase. I want those words more to echo with you as we proceed. Because first of all, I want you to notice that there is a definition you and I can grasp from the seceders even at this stage in the 1740s. And the seceder position was this, that all civil powers that in God's providence have been established or acknowledged by public consent and rule according to the light of nature, They are legitimate civil magistrates. Again, what is that position? The seceders were saying that all civil powers that, in God's providence, have been established or acknowledged by public consent, and those powers that rule according to the light of nature, they are legitimate civil magistrates. And there are certain qualifications that the seceders give to us there. First of all, the seceders reject usurpers. Usurpers are not legitimate magistrates. They are not the ordinance of God. Seceders never taught, at this stage anyhow, they never taught that somebody could be a genuine tyrant and also a legitimate magistrate. And so, what does that mean? Well, that means if a man comes to power without the consent of the people, and contrary to that constituting document, he is not a legitimate magistrate. And furthermore, the seceders also affirmed the right of self-defense. So if a king or a magistrate of any sort begins to oppress his people, well, they also affirm with the Reformed Presbytery that it is a right grounded in the Sixth Commandment for the people to rise against such a magistrate, such a tyrant. So what is the point of difference, then, between the Reformed Presbytery and the seceders? Well, the answer is this. The seceders would say that scriptural or religious qualifications can never be fundamental to a civil constitution. What they mean by that is something really basic. That whether you're in a heathen land or a Christian land, it doesn't matter. As long as the magistrate rules with the consent of the people and according to the light of nature, Regardless of what kind of land he lives in and rules, he is to be esteemed a legitimate magistrate. And the seceders would go on and say that, well, yes, scriptural qualifications are essential for the well-being of civil government, but they deny emphatically that they could ever be essential for the being of civil government. What then of the reformed Presbyterian position? Well, I want to say, first of all, that here the Reformed Presbyterian goes at great lengths to emphasize that point of distinction. And so despite all the commonality that exists between these two bodies, this part of the Acts of Declaration and Testimony will stress and stress vehemently over 70 pages why this point of difference exists and why it's important. Now, the reformed presbytery does so in somewhat a lamenting way. They say, it's a vast pity and is with grief and lamentation that the presbytery find themselves in point of duty, obliged to live up to testimony against they who have made a professed judicial banner displayed for truth, and have in reality showed themselves much zealous in opposing a variety of errors in doctrine, corruption, and discipline in government, have contributed to vindicate some of the most important truths. and have been instrumental in turning many to righteousness and reviving the exercise of practical godliness among a few." He's saying it's a pity that they have to oppose men who they otherwise esteem as great and godly men. But what the Presbyterian goes on to say is that they feel their duty is much like was Paul's as he dealt with Peter. The idea here is not that they are dealing with people who are not Christian. Actually, more than that, these men in the Reformed Presbytery had a great admiration for the seceders. But because they believed their brethren were an error, this testimony was necessary. What I want to do for the remainder of our time this evening is I want to reconstruct what is their testimony against the seceder position. And the reality is I have to reconstruct it. As you look at the document yourself, you'll notice that It's a bit like walking into a room in the middle of a conversation that started two hours before you arrived. In many ways, when our generation looks at the Act, Declaration, and Testimony, there are fundamental principles that are bandied about in this document that we hardly have thought about. And so I think it's my task this evening just to sketch, if you like, what are those fundamental principles that guided this discussion and so underwrote our first testimony. What I want to do is I want to follow the testimony of sense by talking about the institution of civil magistracy, that is, its origin. And I know this may be tedious for you to listen to, but I hope it's useful for me to quote, sometimes at length, from the testimony. I will elucidate briefly, but let me just quote first of all what the testimony says about the institution of civil government. Magistracy is a divine ordinance flowing originally from Jehovah, the supreme and universal sovereign of heaven and earth, as the ultimate fountain thereof. And so what are they saying? Well, they're saying that civil government is not man's creation. The institution of civil government is from God. It doesn't flow from the ingenuity of man. It certainly doesn't flow from any kind of self-established authority. Civil government is established by God. And then the Act Declaration of Testimony goes further. In the divine institution of magistracy is not only the appointment of it, but the defining the office in its qualifications and form. in a moral sense, prescribing what shall be the end and what the measure of its authority and how the supreme power shall rule and be obeyed. So not only has God said that there will be such a thing as civil government, but God has also determined what is its purpose, how it should come into being in life, He's also said before us very clearly also the moral qualifications for those who are to hold office. In other words, God not only has said that there will be such an institution, but he has also prescribed its form as well as its exercise. And what are the ends? What is the purpose of civil government according to the scriptures? I think the Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes the scriptures very powerfully here. In chapter 23, paragraph 1, the divines write, God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people for his own glory and the public good. Now, it's important, friend, that you recognize what that definition tells us. It tells us that even if there had been no fall, there would have been purpose for civil government. It was ordained for public good. And of course, first and foremost, for God's glory. Just briefly, why do we say that civil government will always exist as a creation ordinance? Well, if you look back at the creation mandate, Genesis 1, verse 28, the command to man is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it. And God then put Adam in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And what you recognize there is that even before the fall, it fell upon man to order. His work for God. And so even in Adam and Eve, you see one member of humanity, man, placed in a hierarchy over another, a woman, for order. So no, civil government is not a creation after the fall. None of our reformers ever maintained that. That's become a position in vogue laterally. It was a prelapsarian institution. But after the fall, note what the confession goes on to say. Yet God hath armed them, civil magistrates, with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers. And so yes, after the fall, with the introduction of sin, now it's not just for ordering society in their work, but now it also involves the work of justice, being God's vicegerents as he executes his wrath upon those who are his rebels. John Fairley, A Reformed Presbyterian minister, also quite instrumental in the Reformed Presbytery at this and a later stage, summarizes thus, that the institution of magistracy was for the maintenance and preservation of peace, truth, righteousness, and godliness. What then of the Constitution? Again, the Act Declaration and testimony tells us that the Constitution, that is, The determination of the form of government and investiture of the particular person with the government is of God. That's worth repeating, I suppose. The determination of the form of government and investiture of the particular person with the government is of God. What do they mean? Well, let me read you just a few lines after. When a nation acts according to divine rule, in the molding of government and advancing of persons to the exercise of it, there, there the government and governors may be said to be ordained by God. In other words, whenever you have a magistrate, or if you go even before that, when you have a people gathered together to form a political constitution, provided that constitution answers the ends for which God has instituted civil government, and provided those who are then entrusted with that authority are in fact answerable to those ends and carry themselves so, it is to be regarded as the ordinance of God. And as they say here, those governors may be said to be ordained by God. The seceders said something else. The seceders said this, they said, all providential magistrates are also preceptive. The office and authority of them all, in itself considered, equally arise from and agree unto the preceptive will of God, respecting the institution of the magistracy." What are secetors saying? Well, what they're saying there is, again, what we already reviewed. The secetor position was that if you find any magistrate who rules with the consent of the people, and generally according to the light of nature, He is to be regarded the ordinance of God. That's not what the Reformed Presbytery was saying at all. Not at all. There's a distinction that you and I are going to encounter here in just a moment. What the Reformed Presbytery does at this juncture is they summarize the seceder position. They acknowledge the seceders do. Every constitution of government that comprehends the will and consent of civil society were it as wicked and diabolical as can be imagined. as lawful as any that is most consonant to the perceptive will of God." Now you'll understand why the Reformed Presbytery says that here in a moment. Because what the seceders do to demonstrate from Scripture their position is they turn to a text, they turn to several texts, but principally to Romans 13. And in Romans 13 they say, well there, there you have it. Any government that is established with the consent of the people That is the ordinance of God. Now, to refresh ourselves, what does Romans 13 say? In the very first verse, we're told, let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. The seceder interpretation of that text is really straightforward. If he looks like a magistrate, If he acts like a magistrate, he must be the ordinance of God. It's at this point that this Reformed Presbytery counters. First of all, they remind the seceders that the word powers there is not the word dunamis. It is exousia. Dunamis means brute force. It means someone who has strength, physical strength. if you like. Exclusia is something else. In the scriptures, every time that word occurs with regard to human society, it occurs with regard to lawful authority, as opposed to pretended or unlawful authority. So even their friend, in Romans 13, the Reformed Presbyterian would quickly remind their seceding brethren that the scriptures do draw a distinction. between raw power, or simply power that seems to exist, and that which is actually true. And if that's the case, this is important. Not everyone that is established by providence and to a place of civil power is necessarily, by God's law and will, to be regarded as a magistrate. Only those who are lawful magistrates are in view in Romans 13. The Reformed principle theory elaborates on that particular point. The power here spoke of by the apostle is not a physical, but a moral power, a power that is lawful and warranted in regard of the matter, the person, the title, and the investiture of his government. That brings us then, as we round here to a close, of what is civil reformation. This is quite important, because you may say at this juncture, that if it's the case that every magistrate must be legitimate only as he rules according to the light of nature, and only as he rules according here to the ends and the purpose of civil magistracy, can anyone but a Christian be a civil magistrate? Is the Reformed Presbyterian position here that only Christians can enjoy the benefit and blessing of civil government? This is where I hope the pin drops. The Reformed Presbytery says no. No. And in one voice. I want to elaborate on this point. When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, the Apostle writes, These, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness in their thoughts, the meanwhile accusing or excusing one another." That's Romans 2, verses 14 and 15. I want you to hear what Thomas Nairn says on that text. Nairn writes that they, that is the Gentiles, did by nature the things contained in the law. They had some sense of justice and equity. by the light of which they were taught to obey parents, the conservation of the public peace and order. And while God in his providence continues heathens in a state of heathen ignorance, they can only act by that reason which God hath given them, and that will lead them to seek some rules of society and government. And therefore, the governors whom they choose have a right to govern according to the rules and laws of society. And no person has a right to disturb them in the exercise of that government until the true religion and knowledge of it come among them. Their own subjects are bound, by their own consent, to live according to their established constitution. And Christians, who are cast providentially among such a people, they are also bound to regulate themselves according to these laws, if not sinful, while they live in these parts. Let me just read here a few others. John Fairley, another Reformed Presbyterian writing in 1780, puts it this way. He says, what works and actions the heathen did while they were conformed to the law of God, I mean his written law, which is the very same in substance with his unwritten natural law, were morally good. And therefore, insofar as they conducted themselves agreeable hereunto in setting up their magistrates They were God's ordinance. In other words, if you live in a heathen land and these heathens rule according to the light of nature that they have, the Reformed Presbyterian one voice maintained that they could be regarded as legitimate magistrates, provided, again, they ruled with the consent of the people and the Constitution itself was formed according to the light which they possessed. But there's a real important distinction here. Here, the Reformed Presbytery departs from the seceders in a big way. For a while, you can have heathens in rule in a heathen land, ruling according to that light of nature which they possess. It's quite another thing for a heathen to be allowed to rule in a Christian land, or for Christians in a Christian land. to set up a constitution that is not fundamentally squared to the revealed will of God in the scriptures. This is why, as you read the Act, Declaration, and Testimony, the reference again and again is to Christian lands, and to reformed lands, and to enlightened lands. They are always drawing on this distinction, even if they're not elucidating it in the text itself. This is the point of difference. And folks, I need to say this to you. This is the principal point of difference at this time between the Reformed Presbytery and the Associated Presbytery. The issues of mediatorial kingship and so forth, those things do not exist at this particular time as points of disagreement between these two bodies. It is this question, is it necessary for a Christian land to frame its constitution such that scriptural qualifications are fundamental to the civil constitution of those lands. That's the principal difference. And the Reformed Presbytery maintains that they believe that in the scriptures, this is required of them. In other words, that in a Christian land, with the benefit and light of the gospel, they must make their civil constitutions, those which require scriptural qualifications of their magistrates. And so for instance, the quote from Deuteronomy there, chapter 17, and verses 14 and 15. I'll read this very quickly here. When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me like all the nations that are about me, thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose. One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee. Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother, The act declaration and testimony elucidates there. The person is described in this text both negatively and positively. He must be a brother, which relation is not to be confined to that of kindred or nation, but a brother in respect of a cordial embracing and sincere profession, as far as men can judge, of the same cause of religion. And so one of whom it may be expected that he will employ his power and interest to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ. And this is where this text is so important, because then the presbytery goes on to say, this precept, that of Deuteronomy 17, respects the office and points at the very deed of constitution. And in the most positive manner, restricts not only the people of the Jews, but every nation blessed with the light of divine revelation in setting up of their civil rulers, pointing forth on whom they may and on whom they may not confer this honorable office. OK, so folks, I know I'm running out of time here, but allow me to wrap up, I suppose, at this point. The fundamental position of the reformed presbytery here is that whenever a land comes under the light of the Gospel, she now then gets to enjoy that particular relationship that in the Old Testament, Israel alone enjoyed. In other words, when a nation, a Gentile nation, comes under the light of the Gospel, the idea there is really basic. That Gentiles enjoy that Old Testament relationship in a New Testament way. If I can put it to you still in another sentence, Israel's peculiar relationship to God that she enjoyed in an Old Testament way, Gentile nations would enjoy in a New Testament way. Why did the Reformed Presbyterian think that? In our world where dispensationalism runs rampant, in our world where individualism has taken over the church, where presentism dominates, such a thought may seem really foreign to us. But the scriptures, I think, teach this to us in clear ways. Let me give you an example. Psalm 33. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Now note the general statement there. Blessed, he says, is the nation whose God is the Lord. In the Old Testament, yes, it was Israel alone But was it always and ever only to be Israel? Let me remind you what you find at the end of Isaiah 19. God says, blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance. You see, the promise at the end of Isaiah 19 was that even Assyria and Egypt would enjoy as nations that peculiar relationship to God which Israel only enjoyed in the Old Testament. And so in Revelation 11 we have those words that I often repeat to you. The church rejoices in that the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ. A friend, all of these things point to the idea that underpins our Reformed Presbyterian position here. It was not for Israel alone, this precept, to make sure that one has a brother, fundamentally a brother in religion, to be ruler over them. But any nation that would sustain that peculiar relationship to God must, in its fundamental deed of constitution, incorporate those qualifications as necessary to rule. Thorburn, one of the most influential men at this time in the history of the Presbytery and a fundamental author for the Act of Declaration and Testimony. He writes thus, he says, do seceders think that a theocracy, that is, God's government, was peculiar to the Jewish nation? It is true that in respect of some peculiar laws, prescriptions, and limitations, it was. But in respect of God's moral government and agency, the whole world and all the different nations therein It is a theocracy under God's moral government. The whole world is obliged to regulate their actions, both natural and moral, according to that universal law which is binding upon all. And so, in that of instituting government among them, as well as other moral actions or otherwise, they fall under God's judgment for their rebellion. Moreover, I challenge the Cedars to show that what is required and prescribed in Deuteronomy 17 is either in whole or in part contrary to what belongs to the institution of magistracy in the law of nature and nations conform thereunto. Thorburn goes on later at great length to explain why Gentile nations now must be many of them considered under the light of the gospel such that this precept is binding upon them. Now, brethren, it's at this point that I would like to go on and to describe the conversion or reformation of the civil magistrate, and then also its defection, all of these being crucial points to the point of difference between seceders and RPs. But we don't have time. Instead, what I want to do is I want to close, I suppose, our time this evening, first of all, by summarizing what we've seen thus far, just very briefly. The point of difference between the Reformed Presbytery and the Seceders was the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the present civil governments. They agreed at this particular time on the mediatorial kingship of Christ. They agreed on so many things like the obligation of Christian nations to have Christian laws and to support the church civilly and so on and so forth. But the point of difference between the seceders and the Reformed Presbytery at this juncture is just this, that the Reformed Presbytery held that those qualifications as you find in the covenants for ruling are fundamental to the constitution of the governments of these lands. And if those qualifications are not found in the government, then that government cannot be considered the ordinance of God. It is not. It is not. The magistracy of Romans 13. The Cedars denied that. But that was the position that distinguished the secession from Reformed Presbytery. What does that mean for you and for me? I said to you already that this is not the time where we really raise those practical questions. It's more important that we have a firm foundation before we ask what we do. But allow me to stress this, I suppose, at this juncture. Friend, what light, what great privileges have we enjoyed in these lands? Have we not seen fulfilled, even in ourselves, that promise that was made in Isaiah 19? That even Gentile nations would be able to call God their God. We've enjoyed that great, that precious privilege. And folks, so much did we enjoy that, that we required at one time all of those who would hold government over us to be so submitted to the Lord, to have a brother in religion at the helm of government in the support of the church and the advancement of Christ's cause. Folks, that's why this whole discussion occurs, isn't it? And so for us, Folks, for us, I think the practical application is to mourn. How far we've fallen. For us, we need to contemplate really and seriously just how far we have abused those mercies and privileges that God has bestowed upon us. How right we are for His wrath. My friend, if we do that right, If we do come to a point where we feel this more and more, well friend, I believe that we will be a people who will be faithful witness bearers of our generation. But not before then. Not really before then. So take these things, yes, as truths to be meditated upon, to be worked through, but also take them before the Lord in solemn confession for our many, many breaches here. Let's close our time in prayer, shall we? Our most gracious and holy God, we bow before Thee this evening, mindful that Thou art King of Kings and Lord of Lords, mindful that our King Messiah is grand, it is universal, and it is incumbent upon the nations to submit to his scepter. And we come before Thee with thanksgiving that thou hast been so gracious and so very kind to take even these, the outer aisles, to bring them under thy gracious dominion. And Lord, we do thank thee and we praise thee that even in our own past, we do see the power of thy grace and conquering pagans and conquering those in the darkness of anti-Christian error and conquering those who were subdued by earthly interest. and submitting them to the cause of Christ to seek its advancement. And Father in heaven, we are mindful that so very few nations have enjoyed the light of the gospel. And even fewer, even no others have enjoyed such light, such a great degree of reformation as have we. We do thank Thee for these things, but we also bow before Thee mindful. Mindful that we are also now headlong in rebellion. Mindful that for all of these privileges that we've received, we've only sinned all the more. And so we do pray that as we meditate upon these things, we would be grieved as a generation at how far we have fallen. that thou wouldst teach us to pray even in earnest, to restore the years that the locust had eaten, to turn back the tide of wickedness, to revive us indeed. And blessed God, we do pray, as thou hast promised, that thou wilt make the knowledge of the Lord as the waters that cover the sea. We long for that day. We long for its hastening. And so for Christ's sake, in His name we pray. Amen.