and the sermon text this afternoon is a short one from Romans the book of Romans chapter 13 verses 1 through 7 only Romans 13 verses 1 through 7 let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. but if thou do that which is evil be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil wherefore ye must meet the subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake for for this cause pay ye tribute also are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues. Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. May God bless to us once more this portion of His own inspired Word. Now we have arrived this afternoon at a subject of very real importance. The subject of the civil magistrate, or in more common terms of government, civil government. But this is a subject which has caused a great deal of controversy and difference of opinion among Bible-believing Christians. Now we could call our subject indeed this afternoon the Christian view of politics and I think that would be a very just title in many ways to what is before us here today. We know that in terms of history there have been different views of the position of the civil government, the civil magistrate for instance in what is known as Erastianism following the teaching of the man Erastus in an earlier century the view is that the church should be subject to the state and in fact in England in the Anglican church to some extent still in the 21st century that is the situation the state is the one which appoints bishops and various church dignitaries and has authority in the changing of the prayer book of the Church of England and so forth what we call Erastianism another view of course is what might be termed Papalism that the state is in fact subject to the church and that is still really the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church today wherever the Roman Catholic Church has power in a nation, its desire is in fact to control the civil authority and we see that particularly of course in the centuries leading up to the Reformation itself in the 16th century And even today, as I mentioned, there are different views among Christians, and even Reformed Christians. We're going to see this afternoon that in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, which we will be referring to, the chapter on the Civil Magistrate, the American Reformed Churches have actually altered Section 3 of that chapter of the Westminster Confession, altered it quite dramatically. by a revision that took place in the 18th century, around 1789, to be precise. Now, I need to say, by way of introduction this afternoon, that I do believe that the original chapter in our subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, does convey what I understand to be the scriptural view of the relationship between the Church and the State. and I will be saying in a little while that I think, in spite of all the good intentions of reformed Presbyterians in the 18th century, in the USA, the 18th century, yes, I think that they misunderstood the teaching of the section that they changed, and that there was no necessity to change it. Now, you and I can debate that of course after the exposition and the service is over this afternoon if you feel you need to do that with me. What I do believe is that the church and state have separate powers and functions but that both are ordained by God for distinct purposes and yet the state is not neutral in terms of its obligation to recognize and uphold the true Christian faith and religion and I think we're going to see in our study this afternoon that one of the fundamental questions before us is simply this is Christ only the King and Head of His Church? or is He, as the book of Revelation describes Him, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords? or in terms of the Old Testament and the teaching of Psalm 2 is there not an obligation of the civil governments of this world as one of you was reminding me over lunch today an obligation to kiss the sun and to be at peace with him and if there is any portion of the Old Testament that teaches so clearly headship of Christ over the nations, I suggest to you, it is there in Psalm 2, beyond any question of doubt. Well then, this is the nature of the subject that is before us this afternoon. Now before we look at the teaching in a little more detail, both of Scripture and our confession of faith, let me say a brief word about Romans 13 verses 1 through 7 as you know Paul has delivered the great doctrinal matters in this epistle through chapters 1 through 11 and then in chapter 12 and following to the end of the book he is giving himself to the application of those doctrines so we come in chapter 13 to his teaching about the Christian's obligation to obey the civil magistrate or the civil ruler I just want you to notice several things briefly in these first 7 verses of chapter 13 you notice that Paul recognizes beyond all question of doubt that authority in the civil realm derives from God and from Him supremely and alone. Verse 1, there is no power but of God the powers that be, the powers that are in existence, the civil powers in other words are what? ordained by God now Paul is not emphasizing that civil government is by the will of the people or by a social contract or any other means of man's devising, he is reminding us that ultimately all human authority in terms of civil government derives from God the great moral governor of the universe and therefore his teaching flows on from verse 2 to verse 7 and it's an obvious application of what he has said but if a Christian is to resist lawful civil authority they are tantamount to resisting the authority that God has put in place, because why are rulers there, Paul argues? They are not a terror to good works or to righteous people, but to evil, and therefore it is the Christian's duty to live in such a way that he receives the commendation of the civil ruler, and should he err and break the law, that is lawful authority, he has good reason to be afraid, Paul says, because the civil governor does not bear the sword in vain, verse 4, he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil and I think it's very clear from verse 4 that Paul's understanding of the duties of the civil governor include, at times, the right of capital punishment, to take someone's life. It's interesting that the word in verse 4, sword, is not the normal Roman sword used in battle, it's the short Roman sword that would be used by magistrates in the execution of a criminal. And verse 4 there, I think it's very clear that Paul sees the civil governor invested with the right to exercise capital punishment as necessary he goes on, you notice, to remind Christians that the civil governor is to be honoured, that taxes are to be paid and respect is due to everyone according to their appointed sphere in government so it's a very significant passage and it's a reminder congregation that though the Christian is a citizen of another world he's still a citizen in this one and has responsibilities and duties toward the civil government very incisive and instructive passage of scripture indeed well we must leave it there and I want us now to look at the teaching in our subordinate standard which of course is based on scripture itself chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of the Civil Magistrate section 1 the civil government is ordained by God short section God the Supreme Lord and King of all the world hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people for his own glory and the public good and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword for the defense and encouragement of them that are good and for the punishment of evil doers now what is this but a succinct and beautiful statement of what we have just read in Romans 13 verses 1 through 7 I want you to notice one or two things quite quickly that a government is an ordinance of God and is not a human device ultimately it is instituted by God as the supreme lord and king of the world is the language of the Westminster Confession in other words, God as the moral governor of this world has instituted human government so that all who bear rule in the civil sphere are in a real sense, my friends, the vice-regents of God himself and that's very important to remember and that he has instituted human government, we are told, for man's happiness and welfare, among other reasons. Now we do note that he has not enjoined one single form of government as obligatory. For instance, monarchy, which we see as the norm in scripture, and indeed has been the norm in my own country of Great Britain, nor is it democracy that is authorized nor republicanism he has left the form of government open in terms of civil government and I think that's why Peter in his first epistle chapter 2 verse 13 exhorts his readers and hearers to be subject to every ordinance of man in the Lord to be subject in the Lord to every ordinance of man and I think Peter there is really inadvertently referring to any kind of government whether it would be monarchy or republicanism or, as in the Roman state, an autocracy, virtually we are to be subject to lawful authority I want you to notice the words UNDER, OVER and FOR do you notice that? magistrates have been appointed to be UNDER him very interesting there, over the people for his own glory. So you see we cannot say that there is a total separation of church and state even in this first section of the Confession of Faith. Government exists ultimately for the glory of God and should be exercised for the glory of God and not simply the temporal good of man this is added, the public good but it is for his own glory so you see there's no such thing as the divine right of kings as there was at the time of at least it was argued by the Stuart Kings at the time of the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith It was one of the great battles, remember, the Puritans had to fight in the 17th century, the Stuart monarchy claimed divine right and even authority over the church itself and you may remember that Samuel Rutherford, one of the great Puritans from Scotland, wrote his famous books against the divine right of kings called Lex Rex. Very easy to remember that. The law is king. Lex being the Latin word for law and Rex of course being the Latin word for king. And that book was burned publicly by the public hangman at the restoration of King Charles II after the great Cromwellian revolution when Charles II was restored. but it's a very famous book showing that there is no divine right of kings and that God's law is that which should govern even all kingly rule so the power of government derives from God and is for his honour and glory it does not come, congregation, ultimately from the consent of the governed isn't that the view of most Americans today? it does not come from the will of the majority ultimately it does not come from entering into a social compact it comes directly from the ultimate authority and imposition of human government by the moral governor of the universe himself and even under the corrupt and dictatorial Roman Empire we've seen in Romans 13 Paul still recognizes the Christian duty and obligation to obey the civil government unless, as we will see it violates the law of God. Now you notice again on section 1 that we are told the civil governor is armed with the power of the sword he has a judicial role, I was reminding you of that in my brief exposition of Romans 13 he must uphold the good and punish the evil. Now this clearly implies his right to exercise capital punishment, the death penalty much disputed today, isn't it? even among Christians who erroneously misunderstand the sixth commandment thou shalt not kill it's better rendered thou shalt not murder and good Christians that you have known, that I have known have argued that it is wrong to take human life at all now we need to remember that this requirement of capital punishment goes way back even before the sixth commandment in Exodus 20 to the time of Noah in Genesis 9 verse 6 when God said he that takes man's life his own life shall be forfeit for man was made in the image of God and it's very clear even from the earliest scriptures that capital punishment has been instituted by God, retribution for sins is divinely sanctioned though it's largely dismissed, isn't it from modern penal theory if someone commits a crime then we may imprison them, we may view their punishment as restrictive and certainly as reformatory but we must never regard it as punitive and this is directly contrary to what we see is the standard of scripture well in summary, civil government then is divinely sanctioned though we know from other scriptures when rulers defy God's requirements for rule they may be lawfully resisted as in the days of the Covenanters but otherwise human government is an institution to preserve us from anarchy and to secure true personal liberty when rightly exercised. Now section 2 It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the offers of the magistrate when called thereunto, in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice and peace according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. Now this section originally, I think, was written with the Anabaptist teaching in view and the Anabaptists in Europe had a very low view of the civil magistrate and would not countenance a Christian entering what we would call today politics, becoming a magistrate or involved in any part of human civil government. Now we believe that that view of the Anabaptists is entirely wrong and entirely unscriptural. Now you notice what is being said here and quickly on this if a Christian is called thereunto it's lawful for him to be in civil government called thereunto primarily of course by God and then by the people's elections certainly. Now if this were not the case it would be absurd because in Romans 13 Paul has said that God has instituted human civil government and how could it then be illegal or unscriptural for a Christian to be involved in something that God has authorised? It doesn't make any kind of biblical sense at all. All lawful occupations are open to Christians and we must not hold the super-spiritual idea of a separation between the so-called secular and the so-called spiritual. A Christian is a member of two worlds and he has responsibilities in each. We only need to think of biblical examples. David was king, a civil ruler, so was Solomon and a good ruler in his better days before his declension Josiah was a wonderful king of Israel and wrought significant biblical reformations in the nation Hezekiah likewise and in Isaiah 49 verse 23 we are reminded that kings are to be the nursing mothers of the church of God's people and again in Psalm 72 verses 10 and 11 there's a similar reference. So it is perfectly lawful for a Christian to be engaged in civil government. Now do you notice the duty that he should perform is to maintain piety, justice and peace. In other words, a Christian must not contract out of his responsibility to promote these things in every possible way. That is, piety and justice and peace. If he's in politics, that must be his end if he's in the area of economics in civil government that must be his end if he's a member of a trade union that must be his end and his aim to maintain piety, justice and peace and interestingly the word piety there comes I'm sure from 2 Timothy 2 verse 1 where we are told by Paul to pray for our civil governors that we may be governed in all godliness and honesty. Now again, how can you say that the civil ruler does not have any responsibility in terms of upholding the true faith and religion? We are to pray for the ruler that we may live in all godliness and honesty. so that's very interesting, so you see if a Christian is involved such things, and I'm being very practical here for a moment such things as the observance of the Sabbath day marriage and divorce concerning which our civil rulers in this nation and many western nations have completely departed from biblical standards as we know the upholding of capital punishment anything on which the Lord has declared his mind in the written and inspired scriptures should be the concern of the Christian who has entered politics or civil government in any form in national life where scripture shows God's will the Christian is to follow those principles now you see what we are taken up with generally in this nation in politics is h-bombs and their danger racial discrimination high taxation and so forth the maintenance of law and order and we should avoid the error of thinking that all of these are the real issues that face a nation the real issues that face a nation are stated here the maintenance of piety and justice and peace according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth. And that's something that so few, it seems, are aware of. So it's lawful for Christians to be in all manner of legitimate government. And the great dilemma for a Christian, as I don't need to remind you, is this. Am I going to follow God's standards, or am I going to follow man's standards? And that is the issue which makes it so difficult, I think, for those who are committed Christians to accept political office. A very, very difficult task. And we ought to be much in prayer for those who may represent us who have Christian convictions in civil government. Now, thirdly, here we come to the very significantly altered section in the original it reads 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 have the authority and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church that the truth of God be kept pure and entire that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed for the better effecting thereof whereof he hath power to call synods to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transected in them be according to the mind of God now it's been severely altered as I mentioned to you in the American editions of this chapter in section 3 here because of the quote-unquote separation of church and state and if you read the American edition, I have it with me but I don't think I have time to read it to you this afternoon it is very significantly different apart from the opening sentence that the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacrament or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is church discipline then the rest of it is entirely and significantly altered. Now, as I mentioned in my introduction, I think this is because our presbytery and forefathers misunderstood the intention and meaning of the Westminster Divines here thinking that they gave too much authority to the state and I believe that a proper reading of this section shows that this is not at all the case because as we have seen already this afternoon the state is not neutral regarding religion but it is itself a divinely appointed and instituted ordinance of God and that among its other functions it is there to assert and defend the true religion. I'll say a word about this in a moment. While not interfering in the church's own unique sphere but still having a duty as the civil government to employ its influence in every way competent for the good of the Christian church and the advance of the true religion I want you to notice in this section that the state is proscribed, that is forbidden from interfering in several areas, the preaching of the word is mentioned, the administration of the sacraments, the exercise of church discipline that's the reference to the keys of the kingdom of heaven it is proscribed from any interference in these areas then it should be concerned for the unity and peace of the church why should it not be concerned for the unity and peace of the church? we've seen the state is an ordinance of God that it has been appointed not only for the temporal welfare of man but also in a real sense for his spiritual welfare as well and so there should be a concern there and that the biblical truth be maintained blasphemies and heresies suppressed corruptions of worship and discipline prevented or reformed and all the ordinances of God Well, again, we're going to see that provided the state is not authorised to interfere in the internal affairs of the church externally, it is the duty of the state, so far as possible, to see that these things are being upheld and honoured, and I'm going to say a word about that in a moment. I personally have no problem with these statements even the power to summon synods well wasn't the Westminster Assembly of Divines called by ordinance of Parliament? by the government? and we admire this statement so wonderfully and clearly yet Parliament had no authority in the deliberations of the Westminster Divines to determine what was right biblical doctrine or discipline Their power was limited simply to the summoning of that assembly. And I'll say a word about that in a moment. Now all of this is very hard to stomach here in the United States, isn't it? Because of the acceptance very widely of the complete separation of church and state. And I think because there is such a complete separation of church and state and increasingly the refusal of any Christian influence upon civil matters we're seeing the civil government go steadily downwards and not upwards whereas the vision of the original writers of the Confession was that the state, as I said, is not neutral it should not be subordinate to the changing whims of the day which is the case in our government but subject to God's unchanging word. Now I want you to notice this, and then we're going to leave this section, and then quite quickly finish. The section does not teach that the civil magistrate has a controlling power over the church. It is not teaching this. And I think this is shown by several things, and I mention five of them, very quickly. the first is that other sections of the confession make it clear that the state has no controlling influence over the church for instance, chapter 31 dealing with synods and councils shows that the state has no right of interference in the internal matters of the church now, either the confession of faith is consistent with itself or it isn't and I believe it is consistent with itself and even if some detached phrases that I read to you from section 3 this afternoon may seem to imply something else they have to be read in the light of the consistency of the whole confession of faith particularly chapter 31, the authority of synods and councils secondly, it's Christian magistrates that are in view here particularly there's no doubt about it, Christian magistrates were primarily in view here. But then thirdly, having said that all magistrates should have in view not only the temporal welfare of their subjects but the advancement of their spiritual welfare is an obvious duty of the civil magistrate as well. George Gillespie, one of the Scottish representatives at the Westminster Assembly in 1643 to 1647 wrote a great book that's recently been republished called Aaron's Rod Blossoming and he makes it very clear that it's the duty of the civil government whether it is entirely Christian or not it's still its duty for the advancement of the true faith within its own competent powers now the fourth thing I want to say there is there are clear restrictions as we've seen that apply in this third section Christ is still the head of the church alone there can be no interference in the church's internal government there can be no final determination of doctrinal matters this belongs to synods and councils in chapter 31 even though it says here at the end, for the better effecting whereof he has 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 well, what it's really saying there in the light of chapter 31 is that it is the synod that decides this and the magistrate seeing this to be in accordance with the word of God then has the liberty to make that the law of the kingdom or the commonwealth the requirement within the Kingdom and the Commonwealth. It's not stating that the magistrates determine the doctrine of the Church, and I think that's very important to remember it. And finally, in terms of calling synods, even the Church of Scotland recognised that this grace was in here really for exceptional circumstances, and that normally the Church has its own right and authority to call it Synod, and this again is stated in chapter 31. Of course the magistrate has a right to be present at them, he needs to be satisfied that what is transacted is indeed according to scripture, but he does not determine what is according to scripture. Well, in my understanding, friends, this afternoon, properly understood, this chapter needed no revision and we in this denomination hold to the original, unmodified version we recognise the state is a divine institution under God, it is bound to assert and defend the true religion now, of course, an unbelieving magistrate is in no position to do this but it doesn't take away his duty any more than the unregenerate man is unable to repent yet God commands all men everywhere to repent there is still the duty of the civil magistrate there is the inability to fulfill it and hence the need for our prayers as we see in a moment for all magistrates that they may be brought into the position that they should have been in originally now section 4 and very quickly it is the duty of people to pray for the magistrates to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues to obey their lawful commands, to be subject to their authority for conscience sake infidelity or difference in religion does not make void the magistrates just and legal authority nor free the people from their due obedience to him from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempt much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people, and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatever. Well, quite briefly on this, it's the dignity and authority of civil rulers or magistrates, 1 Timothy 2 verse 1, we are commanded to pray for our civil rulers, as we've seen, that we might live in honesty and godliness and so forth, and I think this section is very straightforward. Just notice one or two things with me. We are to pray for honour, pay tribute to and give obedience to the civil rulers. You notice that the word lawful commands is mentioned there, the fourth line, to obey their lawful commands. And that's very significant. You see, while this whole chapter really doesn't address the subject of whether subjects can rebel against their rulers, particularly Christian subjects it's also clear from the wise wording that they used that rebellion is not ruled out in certain circumstances if a ruler gives unlawful commands then there may be resistance, and that resistance in certain circumstances obviously could become rebellion. Now your own history is witness to that. And I was asked just a few days ago to celebrate with you what we call the Great Rebellion, but we won't get into that subject. July the 4th, I'm teasing you. But of course the Covenanters in Scotland in the late 17th century, of course, resisted the rule of the Stuart Kings because they imposed upon the Scottish people that which was unlawful demanding that they worship God with a prayer book and according to Anglican forms that they recognise the King as the head of the church and so on and rightfully there was resistance because this was not an exercise of lawful commands or lawful authority. Notice also that infidelity or difference in religion does not take away our obligation to honour the magistrate. We cannot say that because the President of the United States, it may be, is an ungodly, an unbelieving man, we have no obligation to obey him. In Romans 13, Paul wrote, at the time of the great autocracy of the Roman Emperor, He was an idolater, and Paul did not say, because the Roman Emperor, your ruler, is an infidel. It releases you from your obligation to obey his lawful demands and requirements. We need to remember that Christ paid tribute to Caesar. and when the soldiers even came to John the Baptist asking what they would do having repented of their sins he did not in any sense say to them it is unlawful for you to be a soldier under an infidel emperor and in an autocratic state and you need to resign your commission he didn't he said defraud no man and he gave them other instructions and so forth and the other thing I want you to note is the statements against the Roman Catholic view of the state the Roman Catholics have always viewed that they should control the state and there are very clear statements here at the end of this section denying the papal power to remove a ruler from his right to rule or to remove subjects from their oath of allegiance to say a Protestant monarch. Now this happened under the reign of Elizabeth I in England in the Puritan period you may remember the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth and released Roman Catholics from their oath of allegiance to be under her rule and in obedience to her and that clearly was a totally unscriptural and unauthorized action by the Roman Church. Well then, as I finish There's real food for thought here, isn't there, and real food for action. We need to be responsible citizens in this world. We need to pray for our civil rulers, especially those who have Christian and Biblical convictions. What a mountain of obstacles they are up against today. And you know, I long to see Christians writing to their representatives in the in the various echelons of American government when they do the right thing to say my dear representative I want you to know I appreciate what you're doing and I am praying for you in this situation this is fulfilling Paul's command to pray for those who are in rule and government over us, and we should use every legitimate means to secure the appointment of civil rulers who would live in accord with these great biblical standards. Well, I hope you find that somewhat helpful. Let's pray together. Our Heavenly Father, we thank Thee again for the comprehensiveness of Thy Word that does indeed bring before us many different subjects, and the civil magistrate being not the least of these. And we pray indeed that some of this great biblical teaching may become very precious to us in these days. For Christ's sake, Amen.