RBO is the Place to Go

I want to highlight a very valuable website which is fast becoming a go-to repository of some of the best Reformed reading material on the Internet: Reformed Books Online. It is run by my friend Travis Fentiman, who is a licentiate in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). I am a contributor to the site as well. 

There are a number of great websites around which have assembled collections of Reformed literature. I recommend the Post-Reformation Digital Library, Monergism, A Puritan's Mind and others. But as RBO has grown and expanded (and continues to do so weekly), I think it has become a site that all Reformed Christians will find to be simply invaluable as it makes available and accessible material from the time of the Reformation forward to the present on such a wide range of topics that readers of this blog will appreciate.

For example, those interested in Psalmody, Psalters or the Establishment Principle or the writings of the Westminster Divines or Scottish Covenanters will have hours and hours of edifying reading. If you desire to read all Reformed Systematic Theologies available online, and much, much more [see also several recommended reading lists here], RBO is the place to go.

Why Study the History of the Scottish Covenanters?

F.F. Bruce, Foreword to J.D. Douglas, The Light in the North, pp. 7-8:

At first blush the inclusion of a whole volume on the Scottish Covenanters in a series covering two thousand years of Christian history may be put down to an excess of provincialism on someone's part. But the inclusion of this volume is due to something more than an exaggerated estimate of the importance of seventeenth-century Scotland in the on-going story of the Church in the world. Thucydides wrote the history of the Peloponnesian War not simply because of the part which it played in his own career, but also because in the record of this conflict, waged over a period of twenty-seven years between the leading states of the Greek world, he discerned principles and patters of action which tended to recur in the fortunes of men and nations. So, too, the story of the Scottish Covenanters, limited as it is in space and time, brings out in sharp outline a crucial issue which the Christian Church has had to face from its earliest days, and which is as acute today as ever it was. 

This issue is not the question whether episcopacy or presbytery is the more apostolic order. To this question there are more than two possible answers. The issue is that of the relation between Church and State. The highest authority that Christians recognize bids them "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." But it is not easy to fix the limits of those things that are Caesar's, and less easy than ever when Caesar himself turns Christian. Extreme positions were taken up on either side in seventeenth-century Scotland, when the divine right of kings was opposed by the divine right of presbytery -- the divine right of presbytery, moreover, not only in the Scottish Kirk but in England and Ireland as well. The kindly, tolerant, hospitable English people have often been bewildered, and at times even exasperated, by the stiff-necked behaviour of the other nations that share with them the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, with their inordinate sense of history and their contempt for the suggestion of reasonable compromise when principles are at stake. Even where a national symbol like the Stone of Destiny is concerned, Scots know where they stand on the point of legal principle and call from time to time upon the sister nation to honour the Treaty of Northampton. But it was not national honour that was at stake in the seventeenth century, but the Crown Rights of the Redeemer -- the claim of Christ to be Master in His own house. On this principle an Aberdeen doctor will insist as strenously as the most zealous Protestor from the west lands. 

For, whatever may be thought about the interpretation which Andrew Melville and his followers put upon the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, it is a fundamental Christian doctrine. On the one hand, there are still times when it must be emphasized that the civil ruler, as such, even when he is a Christian, has no authority in church councils beyond that of the humblest church member. On the other hand, the obedience which a Christian man, or the Christian community, owes to the civil ruler, even when the ruler is a Christian, is never absolute. There are times when it may be not merely a Christian right, but a Christian duty, to disobey the civil ruler: when his claims clash with the law of God, the Christian will say with the apostles: "We must obey God rather than men." Where men so conscious of their Christian right and duty as the Covenanters were confronted by men so blindly insistent on imposing their own will as the Stuarts, the resultant conflict revealed the issues involved with exceptional clarity.

What is Worth Living For is Worth Fighting and Dying For

In his poem "On Seeing the Reformation Monument, Geneva," the Hungarian poet Gyula Illyes, writes (What You Have Almost Forgotten, p. 67) in connection with religious wars, such as the Thirty Years' War, of a famous Hungarian riddle:

The net result, written upon the blackboard --
-- the continent you wiped clean with your armies --
was the mere answer to a foolish riddle,
and that only possible in Hungarian,
where Protestants call themselves 'keresztyen'
and Catholics call themselves 'keresztyeny'
both meaning 'Christian'. And so the riddle runs:
'Why is a keresztyen more than a kereszteny?'
Did you really require the blood
of so many millions dead, before
you could distill this particle of sense,
this little 'y', and when, forgetful of
your duty, you took up the sword and hacked
the Gordian knot of Christian brotherhood,

Many look at history, with its religious wars, crusades, Irish Troubles, and all the spilled blood in the name of Jesus, and ask, Why should anyone fight for religion? In nomine Domini incipit omne malum—In the name of the Lord begins all evil; or so the saying goes. The spectre of the Catholic Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Islamic Taliban, and most especially, an "old Testament God," are all often invoked whenever the concept of fighting for religious liberty is addressed in modern discourse.

The image of conversion by the sword, though it has no historical connection to Calvin's Geneva, Knox's Scotland or Winthrop's Massachusetts, is a powerful lens through which myopic moderns view all religious wars of the past. Forgotten is the defensive nature of the Dutch and Puritan Declarations of Independence, forgotten is the tyranny which the Huguenots resisted with their lives for the sake of conscience, forgotten is the fact that Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, wished to impose Catholic uniformity of worship upon his Protestant subjects, which provoked the Thirty Year's War.

There are those who believe that it is unlawful for any Christians to take up the sword in defense of anything. There are also those who question whether it is worth fighting for or dying for anything.

Albert Camus:

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for.

I would contend, however, that whatsoever is worth living for is worth fighting for (lawfully) and, if need be, dying for. Life, liberty, true religion, these all matter enough to fight for and die for.

Aragorn (The Fellowship of the Ring):

If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. You have my sword.

A good man will give his life for his friends, John 15.13; Rom. 5.7. According to the Scriptures, a man, even an unbeliever, who gives his life for his friends, family or country, or even a stranger, has done something noble, a civil good, and is therefore a hero.

William Wallace (Braveheart):

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

On a personal as well as a national level, there are many reasons to take up arms. It is a matter of wisdom, and certainly many foolish reasons, often rooted in pride or the love of money, have been the basis for many bloody conflicts throughout human history, often with a veneer of religious justification attached to them. The Anglo-Dutch trade wars of the 17th century, between two ostensibly Protestant nations were a disgrace and a grief to the godly of that age. In our day, the spectacle of wars in the Middle East over oil is repugnant to most of us, and rightly so (I speak in general not necessarily of the current conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq). National pride is a terrible reason to sacrifice the precious blood of its heroic men.

Chariots of Fire:

Lord Cadogan: Hear, hear. In my day it was King first and God after.
Duke of Sutherland: Yes, and the War To End Wars bitterly proved your point!

Duke of Sutherland: A sticky moment, George.
Lord Birkenhead: Thank God for Lindsay. I thought the lad had us beaten.
Duke of Sutherland: He did have us beaten, and thank God he did.
Lord Birkenhead: I don't quite follow you.
Duke of Sutherland: The "lad", as you call him, is a true man of principles and a true athlete. His speed is a mere extension of his life, its force. We sought to sever his running from himself.
Lord Birkenhead: For his country's sake, yes.
Lord Birkenhead: No sake is worth that, least of all a guilty national pride.

The use of Jesus' name to justify the unlawful taking of human life is a matter of grief to all who count his name precious. It should be remembered that just because his name is put forth as justification for the taking of life -- which is not even the case with the Taliban -- does not mean that it is done according to the mind of Christ (ie., with respect to the sixth commandment). Yet, where he has called us by his Word and Providence to protect that which is good and precious, we have a duty to fight and, if need be, to die in defense of the good.

J.W. Campbell:

I think it is true to say that religious truth, being the greatest thing in the world, is worth fighting for, and if attacked should be defended at all costs.

The kingdom of God, though spiritual, is not at odds with civil liberty, but rather it alone provides the true basis for it. And those charged with upholding civil liberty -- magistrates, and the soldiers and law enforcement officers under them, in the lawful exercise of their just duties -- bear the sword not in vain to protect the good and punish the evil, Rom. 13.4 (hence we pray for kings and all those in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness [first table of the law] and honesty [second table of the law], 1 Tim. 2.2).

John Kennedy of Dingwall:

[The Establishment Principle is not only] worth living for, but a principle worth dying for.

Of all the causes to fight and die for, those of life and civil liberty and, most especially, true religious freedom, are most excellent. To fight and die for the life and freedom of others, when called upon by Providence, is noble and virtuous; to fight and die in defense of the Lord's cause, when the circumstances are just and appropriate, is truly "precious in the Lord's sight" (Ps. 116.15).

Patrick Henry:

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The Scottish Covenanters who fought -- defensively -- for Christ's Crown & Covenant were also heroes. They took up arms not for personal gain, nor for economic profit or clannish pride, but for the prerogatives of the true head and king of the Church. True religion is the most precious of causes for which to fight and die, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Matt. 16.25; see also Matt. 10.39; 16.26; Mark. 8.35; Luke 9.24; John 12.25; etc.)


Robert Burns, The Solemn League and Covenant:

The Solemn League and Covenant
Now brings a smile, now brings a tear;
But sacred Freedom, too, was theirs:
If thou'rt a slave, indulge thy sneer.

A Plea to America

A.A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, pp. 284-287:

And if Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings, if he is really the Ruler among the nations, then all nations are in a higher sense one nation, under one King, one law, having one interest and one end. There cannot be two laws for Christians—one to govern the relations of individuals, and the other the relations of nations. We must love our neighbor-man as ourselves, so the Master says; therefore we must love our neighbor-man as our own. The rivalries, jealousies, antagonisms and cruel wars between nations are all hideous fratricidal contests and satanic rebellions against Christ our common King. How miserably small and narrow and selfish is the form of so-called patriotism which our poor children are taught is so great a virtue, in comparison with that holy, uplifting passion which comprehends all nations as inseparable parts of the one living universal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Suppose your enterprise in the great competitions of manufacture and trade surpasses theirs, and you grow rich and gild your palaces with the spoils of their poverty; suppose your sinews of war or your personal prowess and valor surpass theirs, and your empire grows great out of the ruins of their commonwealth,—what are you, after all, but the betrayer of your brother's peace or the destroyer of your brother's life and the disloyal render of the body of your common Lord? Alas, that we have yet to learn that the so-called code of honor among nations is just as mean and vulgar a thing as the code of honor among individuals!

And if Christ is really King, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the State as really as he does over the Church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of his rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the open lawbook of his kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as by moral and religious ruin. If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or in death. If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health, and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy his favor. If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if he, the only "Lord, the Giver of life," be absent, then all order is impossible and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos.

Who is responsible for the unholy laws and customs of divorce which have been in late years growing rapidly, like a constitutional cancer, through all our social fabric? Who is responsible for the rapidly-increasing, almost universal, desecration of our ancestral Sabbath ? Who is responsible for the prevalent corruptions in trade which loosen the bands of faith and transform the halls of the honest trader into the gambler's den ? Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the Church to a monstrous propagandism of Naturalism and Atheism ? Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the State is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial Headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?

Whence come these portentous upheavals of the ancient primitive rock upon which society has always rested? Whence comes this socialistic earthquake, arraying capital and labor in irreconcilable conflict like oxygen and fire? Whence come these mad nihilistic, anarchical ravings, the wild presages of a universal deluge, which will blot out at once the family, the school, the church, the home, all civilization and religion, in one sea of ruin ?

In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns, of your rich farms and cities, of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future,—I charge you, you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church,—I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation ; in the name of the adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary,—I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide wild sea of politics, There Is Another King, One Jesus: The Safety Of The State Can Be Secured Only In The Way Of Humble And Whole-souled Loyalty To His Person And Of Obedience To His Law.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (1 Tim. 6 : 13-16).

Biblical Theocracy and Past Abuses

Henry Van Dyke, ed., Groen Van Prinsterer's Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution, "Lecture III: Anti-Revolutionary Principles" 57-67:

4. One weighty and controversial point remains: the union of Church and State. It has many opponents, including Christians. I can best begin with the unadorned presentation of the grounds for it.

If a sovereign in all his acts is to be guided by the precepts of morality, this morality must find support in a religion, to whose faithful profession the sovereign grants protection and favours, in the interest of maintaining justice, virtue, and order. If a sovereign is God's lieutenant, he is obliged publicly to confess and worship Him, to aid others in the exercise of worship, and as far as his legitimate authority extends to apply the standards of God's law to all his deeds and ordinances. As Scripture says: "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."14 As for the church, she is called to be the light, the salt, and the leaven of the world. The church ought not to seek martyrdom or humiliation. She should not withdraw if the state requests her co-operation. The church must endeavour to secure authority and influence for the Gospel, in order that the divine commandments be observed. These are the grounds for the union of Church and State.

Notice that it is not an option but an obligation. Objections based on fear of harm or despair of profit are therefore not to the point. What does it benefit the state? people ask; it has often paid too dearly for the support of the church. And why would the church need any state support? She flourishes under oppression. Worldly favours are a temptation for her. The Gospel is strong enough without human assistance. -- All these commonplaces are irrelevant the moment appears obligatory. The manner and the degree in which it is applied many run into obstacles in view of the requirements of toleration and the rights of conscience, but this may never lead to a denial of the principle.

And yet, as you know, its opponents are daily increasing. The church, they say, is sacred and the state is profane. The church is the community of God, the state is the world that lies in wickedness. What concord hath Christ with Belial?15 -- Don't think I am putting words in their mouths; you will find even stronger expressions in many a book and pamphlet, admonishing advocates of union to repent and inveighing against union as the Carthage that must be destroyed. Why, a zealous Christian in our own country has recently gone on record as saying that with the exception of ancient Israel all states are from the Devil.16 And Professor [Alexandre] Vinet, that gifted scholar and humble believer, is not afraid to assert, in his widely known book published a few years ago, that the confusion of ideas which have led to union can be attributed only to Satan.17

According to Vinet, union is at all times, in all circumstances, under any government, an abomination.

So it is to me -- in a revolutionary state. I loathe a union such as we have had in the Netherlands since 1795. Legally termed a separation, the present relation between church and state is such that factually the church is restricted in the enjoyment of her lawful rights, hindered in the exercise of her proper influence, placed under tutelage, and, breaking the reciprocal bond, is bound in fetters. From such slavery the church ought to wrest herself free. Indeed, with such a state the church should want to have no relation whatever.

But I reject Vinet's general condemnation. Vinet errs in his conception of the state and, accordingly, in his evaluation of its historic relation with the church. He begins by adopting the radical definition of the state as an aggregate of individuals by whose consent the concentrated masses of the people is governed, a "civil society" whose individual members "have made a common cause of whatever is their common concern."18 Then, to forestall having the government of such an omnipotent state, as a corollary, impose also a national religion, in violation of private conscience, he further defines the state as a "man minus his conscience," concerned only with material interests.19 Such a state, I grant, should have no relation with the church. But this is not the historic state of which I speak.

In addition, Vinet frequently succumbs to the temptation of imputing historical misapplications to the principle as such. Then oratory has free play, evoking the spectres of hypocrisy, self-interest, intolerance, fanaticism. But I hold no brief for the folly and wickedness of men. I defend only the principle and what necessarily follows from it.

Many claim, however, that past abuses followed from the very nature of this relationship. The sovereign will always make his supreme power his own ends. The financial tie will everywhere serve as a pretext for inspection and control. The clergy can be bought at any time by the tokens of honour and favour. Where the church is in union with the state, there independence in matters of faith cannot exist.

We readily admit that too often governments have used their power unjustly and have (not just in our days) used their position of paymaster of the clergy to obtain mastery over the church. We are aware that the clergy have not always remained immune to weapons of silver or of steel. Yet, temptations can be resisted; a state's attempts can meet effective opposition; nor will every sovereign want to dominate a church whose faith he shares. As Thomas Chalmers observes: "There might be an entire dependence on the state in things temporal, without even the shadow of a dependence upon it in things ecclesiastical. Although the church should receive its maintenance, and all its maintenance, from the civil power, it follows not that it therefore receives its theology from the same quarter; or that this theology should acquire thereby the slightest taint or infusion of secularity."20 Nor are regular payments of money the sole or principal tie. Payments may cease yet the union continue if the church's faith is but heeded in the drafting of laws and institutions. In short, abuses are possible but not necessary.

This is borne out by the union of church and state as it actually obtained in all nations prior to the Revolution. Here too Vinet, like many others among our Christian opponents today, is more at home in the flowery fields of philosophical speculation than in the arid deserts of historical research. On this point, do the annals of our fathers speak only of weakness, never of vigorous energy, only of neglect, never of vigilance in the performance of duty? In Calvin's Geneva, there was insistence on the independence of the church no less than than on the independence of the state. From the history of the Reformed Church we can summon many witnesses whose deeds are a glorious testimony to the possibility of clinging unshakably to the rights of the church against the arrogations of the temporal authorities.

I call your attention to Great Britain, where in recent years the Free Church of Scotland has sacrificed the benefits of union, however high she valued them, for the sake of preserving genuine independence. In the seventeenth century almost the whole of English history is taken up by the struggle of the courageous Puritans against the coercion of a caesaropapistic regime sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. After the Restoration of 1660 the believers in Scotland, because they wished to maintain presbyterian polity against the designs of an ungrateful and unscrupulous king, suffered bloody persecution for twenty years, ceasing only when William of Orange arrived to put an end to the coercive and arbitrary measures.
...
But it is time to close with a general remark.

My statement of last week fully holds for this evening's topics: never -- if we exclude the Sophists -- no never before the dawn of the Revolution have these basic maxims been subject to doubt. It has only been since then that historical development is exchanged for the Constitution factory, that the free action of the nation's organic parts is replaced by the lifeless whole of a centralized administration, that Divine right yields to the sovereignty of the People, and that the union of Church and State is abandoned in favour of political atheism.

14 [Psalm 2:10, 11.]
15 [Cf. I John 5:19; II Cor. 6:15.]
16 Pastor [H.P.] Scholte, in the periodical De Reformatie [vol. IV, no. 5 (1843), p. 249].
17 Vinet, Essai sur la manifestation des convictions religieuses et sur la separation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat, p. 22.
18 Ibid., p. 215.
19 Ibid., p. 256.
20 Chalmers, Works, XVII, 197.

From Sea to Sea

He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Ps. 72.8).

In the tradition of Virginia, the Old Dominion State, and the Dominion of New England, upon confederation in 1867, our northern neighbor assumed the title of "Dominion of Canada." The phrase "Dominion" currently refers to "autonomous Communities within the British Empire," but there is a deeper, more special significance to Canada's historical appellation.

When the Fathers of Confederation were meeting in Charlottetown in 1864 to determine the new formal name of "United Canada," so the story goes, the delegates were considering whether Canada should be known as "the United Colony of Canada," "the United Provinces of Canada," "the Federated Provinces of Canada," "the Republic of Canada," "the Realm of Canada," "the Union of Canada," or perhaps "the Kingdom of Canada." Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley in his morning devotions read Psalm 72 and the phrase "dominion" in verse eight was impressed upon his mind. He proposed later that day at the conference that the nation about to be born should be known as the "Dominion of Canada," in recognition of its place as a dominion of the Lord, which would spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and from the North Pole to the St. Lawrence River.

The Fathers concurred, and Canada adopted its new name officially on July 1, 1867. Until 1982, that date was observed annually as Dominion Day, but is now known as Canada Day. Canada's official motto, A Mari Usque Ad Mare ("From Sea to Sea"), also deriving from Ps. 72.8, was adopted in 1921, but there has been an effort to amend the motto in recent years. In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, the preamble to which reads: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:...". It is debatable what legal significance this preamble has, and to what extent these words reflect any real commitment to "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2.12). Yet, these legal and historical points are not to be forgotten. They point to a Christian heritage that Canada still acknowledges today, though less and less. Currently, a plaque hangs near the Confederation Chamber in Province House which reads: "In the hearts of the delegates who assembled in this room on September 1, 1864, was born the Dominion of Canada. Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew." May that truly be so, and may the banner of Christ's Crown & Covenant be raised high in all God's dominions.

The Duty of Nations

James R. Willson, Political Danger: Essays on the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over nations and their political institutions 1809-1838, ed., Gordon J. Keddie, pp: 260-261:

Nations Must Acknowledge Christ

Nations are bound, in the constitutions of their government, to recognize formally the authority of the Mediator as their King.

The duty of nations as nations

It is the duty of all individuals who compose a nation to obey Christ. Therefore, the collective body should expressly acknowledge Emmanuel as sovereign Lord. This recognition ought to be embodied in the fundamental law of the empire. When every person in the commonwealth "is under the law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21), the whole nation, in its convention representing all, is bound by the law of God, to do homage to Him "who is Lord of all." "All the parts are equal...to the whole" (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England [London, 1791], Book II, p. 164). As then, when acting apart, every man owes allegiance to Christ, so, when acting together, they cannot nationally be freed from their [obligation] to "the King of kings." "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:23). "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (1 Pet. 2:13). Man, who is subject to Christ, ordains civil government by the will of the majority, in the name of the Lord. And this is the formal reason of the willing submission, or obedience. It is for the Lord Christ's sake, from whom the people derive their right to frame the government, by whom the moral laws of the empire are enacted, whose honor and glory are to be promoted, and for whose sake alone that allegiance is due to this ordinance of man.

Both Tables of the Law

Edward Leigh, Epistle Dedicatory, A Systeme or Body of Divinity:

It is the Duty of the Magistrate not onely to regard that the life of his Subjects be civil and honest, but also that it be religious and godly. Therefore we are taught to pray for them, that we may live under them a peaceable life, not only in all honesty, but also in all godliness, or true worship of God, as the word used by the Apostle doth signifie. Therefore the King was commanded to take a Copy of the whole Law, and not of the second Table only, implyingg that he should look to the execution as well of the first Table as the second.

All for the Kirk and Something Less for the State

One of the "world's most famous orations" is that by John Hamilton, Lord Belhaven, who, in 1706, gave a speech against the impending 1707 Union of Scotland and England, which gave birth to Great Britain. Daniel Defoe, a supporter of said Union, reprinted the text in his History of the Union. In Lord Belhaven's speech, he said:

Whig, in Scotland, is a true blue Presbyterian, who, without considering time or power, will venture his all for the Kirk, but something less for the State.

Both magistrate and ministry are servants of the Lord, in their respective, connected but distinct, spheres. However, Great Britain's tendency has been towards Erastianism, though this maxim is equally important to heed in a time and place where statism runs rampant.

George Smeaton carried the phrase forward in his The Scottish Theory of Ecclesiastical Establishments, and How Far the Theory is Realised, p. 3:

"All for the Kirk and something less for the State," is an old Scottish watchword with which I have much in common.

Defending Christ's Church Appertains to Christian Magistrates

The 1556 Confession of Faith of the English congregation at Geneva was written probably by John Knox and/or William Whittingham. It appears in the Geneva Bible and Geneva Form of Prayers or Book of Church Order. It is an expansion of the Apostles Creed, but this confession, like most Reformed creeds, has something to say very specifically about Christian magistracy too.

And besides this ecclesiastical censure, I acknowledge to belong to this church a political magistrate,[d] who ministers to every man to every man justice, defending the good and punishing the evil; to whom we must render honour and obedience in all things, which are not contrary to the word of God.[e] And as Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, and godly rulers purged the church of God from superstition and idolatry,[f] so the defence of Christ's church appertains to the Christian magistrates, against all idolaters and heretics, as Papists, Anabaptists, with suchlike limbs of Antichrist, to root out all doctrine of devils and men,[g]...

d. Rom. 13:1-7; Wisdom 6:4; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-14

e. Acts 5:29

f. Ex. 32:26-28; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:1ff.; 2 Chron. 29; 35:1ff.

g. 2 Tim. 4:2-4; Col. 2:8, 16-23; Matt. 15:1-9; Isa. 29:13; Heb. 9:12,14,; 25-26,28; 10:10, 12, 14; Acts 10:15; 1 John 2:22; Rom. 7:6; Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:8; Rom. 14:1ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-8; Matt. 19:10-12; 1 Cor. 7:2, 9; 1 Cor. 8[?]; 1 Cor. 10:25; 2 Cor. 6:16; Luke 17:23; Rom. 3:19-20; 1 Cor. 3:11; Gal. 4:9-10

'We Forgot' God

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Ps. 9.17)

William Edgar, "The National Confessional Position," in Gary Scott Smith, ed., God and Politics: Four View on the Reformation of Civil Government (Theonomy, Principled Pluralism, Christian America, National Confessionalism), p. 184:

The effort to make the Founding Fathers appear as militant secularists, like their French contemporaries, is a distortion of history. When today's secular elites intone the First Amendment and rant about the wall of separation between church and state, so as to bludgeon Christians into public silence, they attribute a modern mentality to the architects of the Constitution, which they did not have. In fact, most of the Founding Fathers were indifferent to Jesus Christ (itself a terrible sin).

The Constitutional Convention never voted on Benjamin Franklin's motion to begin each day's deliberation with prayer....When asked why the Constitution did not mention God, Alexander Hamilton reportedly replied that the Framers had forgotten to.7

7 Mark A. Noll, The Search for Christian America (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1983), p. 107.

Proceedings of the Fifth National Reform Convention, to Aid in Maintaining the Christian Features of the American Government, and Securing a Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Held in Pittsburg, February 4, 5, 1874, p. 41:

Dr. John Rodgers [1727-1811], 1788.

This eminent chaplain of the Revolution, observing with regret the omission of all acknowledgment of God from the Constitution, inquired of Alexander Hamilton, on his return from the convention in New York, how that body could fail to incorporate in the Constitution a suitable recognition of the Almighty. The well-known reply was, "Indeed, Doctor, we forgot it." -- Duffield's "God of our Fathers," p. 15.

Primer on the Establishment Principle

The Establishment Principle. What is it?

The Establishment Principle or the Principle of the National Recognition of Religion maintains the scriptural view of the universal supremacy of Christ as King of Nations as well as King of saints, with the consequent duty of nations as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, to honour and serve Him by recognising His Truth and promoting His cause. (C.J. Brown, Christ's Kingship Over the Nations Maintained and Defended in the Establishment Principle, p. 1)

What are the other major theories of church-state relations within Christendom?

1) Roman Catholic papal supremacy over the nations; 2) Erastianism, ie., the chief magistrate is head of the church; 3) Voluntaryism, ie., the state is secular and completely separate from the church.

Isn't the Establishment Principle itself Erastian?

Whereas Erastianism posits the magistrate's power over the church in sacris, that is, in (internal to) religious matters, the Establishment Principle posits the magistrate's power with respect to the church as circa sacris, about (external to) religious matters.

What is the Scriptural basis for this doctrine?

Among some of the scriptural passages adduced in support of the Establishment Principle, include the following:

Ps. 2.10-12 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Ps. 9.17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Ps.22.27-28 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.

Ps. 33.12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

Isa. 49.23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

Isa. 60.12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

Rom. 13.3-4 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.

1 Tim. 2.1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Rev. 19.16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Rev. 21.24, 26 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

What is the (Presbyterian) Confessional basis for this doctrine?

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chap. 23:

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto;(b)in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;(c) so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.(d)

(b) Prov. 8:15, 16; Rom. 13:1, 2, 4.
(c) Ps. 2:10, 11, 12; I Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3, 4; II Sam. 23:3; I Pet. 2:13.
(d) Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9, 10; Acts 10:1, 2; Rev. 17:14, 16.

III. 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:(e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly sttled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)

(e) II Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
(f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
(g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.

Chap. 31:

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;(b) so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.(c)
(b) Isa. 49:23; I Tim. 2:1, 2; II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29, 30 chaps.; Matt. 2:4, 5; Prov. 11:14.
(c) Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 23, 25.

Westminster Larger Catechism (1647):

Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, ... tolerating a false religion;[6] ...

6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17

Q191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
A191: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,)[1] ... the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances,[7] purged from corruption,[8] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:[9] ...

1. Matt. 6:10
7. Matt. 9:38; II Thess. 3:1
8. Mal. 1:11; Zeph. 3:9
9. I Tim. 2:1-2

What about the 1788 American Revision to the Westminster Standards? Does not this exclude the Establishment Principle from the American Presbyterian confessional standards?

The Westminster Standards, as revised in 1788, and adopted by most modern American Presbyterian churches, modified WCF 23.3 to change the Establishment Principle expressed by the Westminster Divines into a statement that the magistrate has a duty to protect the church, but not to establish one church in preference to other Christian denominations, and deleted the reference to the magistrate's power to call synods (WCF 31.2) as well as second commandment sin of "tolerating a false religion" (WLC 109). Yet, it retained the duty of magistrates to maintain "piety" (WCF 23.2) and the statement that we are to pray that the church would be "countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate" (WLC 191), although it seems clear that the doctrinal points retained are understood by the modern adopting bodies in a sense rather different than the original Westminster Assembly, that is, not to uphold the Establishment Principle, but rather to protect Christian churches in general without advancing true religion, per se, or suppressing false religion.

'Actually, the revision was primarily intended to move the confessional position of American Presbyterianism from the "establishment principle"[7] to "voluntaryism,"[8]'

7. The "establishment" view of church-state relations (which should not be confused with Erastianism, as Kline unfortunately seems to do) is that the state should establish a particular church (e.g., in England--the Church of England [episcopal in form], and in Scotland--The Church of Scotland [presbyterian in form]) and work with it for the advancement of the cause of religion in the realm. We may paraphrase William Cunningham's description of the principle behind this view: the obligation to advance the cause of God, and the Kingdom of Christ lies not only with individuals, but also with rulers and nations. See Historical Theology, 2:560.
8. Not the more extreme "voluntaryism" of British independency which operated on the principle that the responsibility for the advancement of the cause of Christ rests merely on individual men, rather than rulers and nations (see again Historical Theology), but a "moderate voluntaryism" which explicitly intended government to favor the Christian religion (but not one particular denomination), protect all denominations of Christians, pass no law hindering Christian ministers and church members in the due exercise of religion, and to uphold the moral law. Cf., WCF 23:2,3 (American revision). (Ligon Duncan, The Westminster Confession: A Theonomic Document?)

Can one adhere to the Establishment Principle if he lives in a country which is officially opposed to (e.g., U.S. Constitution, First Amendment), or stands apart from, an established church?

Thomas Chalmers on the 1843 Disruption: "Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle; we quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice in returning to a pure one. We are advocates for a national recognition of religion — and we are not voluntaries."

George Smeaton on the 1843 Disruption: Thus in one day the Free Church of Scotland, as she fitly called herself, started into vigorous existence. Her very name implied nationality and connexion with the historical Church of Scotland. She arose, not as a sectarian denomination, not as assuming any new ground or principle unknown to the confessors and martyrs of Scotland. She repudiated, and will repudiate, the attitude of a sect. She was conscious of being, what she called herself, the Church of Scotland, Free, and would not break her connexion with the past three centuries of Scottish church history. The principle of national establishment of religion as the fitting homage of the nation, and as the duty of the nation to Christ, the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, was her avowed principle, and could not be surrendered by her without becoming a new church and forfeiting her name. Her protest was not against the Establishment as such, but against the submission with which the Establishment succumbed to the ursurpations and encroachments of the civil power. And had a protesting minority continued within the pale of the Establishment, maintaining the church's independence and the people's rights, they would have had the warm sympathy of every Free Churchman. The footing on which they resolved to go out, and on which the practical steps were taken with a view to a new organization, was unmistakably put before the public to this effect. (George Smeaton, Memoirs of Alexander Thomson of Banchory (Edinburgh, 1869), p. 289 (emphasis is Smeaton's), quoted by John W. Keddie, George Smeaton: Learned Theologian and Biblical Scholar, pp. 48-49, 191)

Is the Establishment Principle really so important?

John Kennedy of Dingwall: [The Establishment Principle is not only] “worth living for, but a principle worth dying for."

Ministry and Magistracy

Thomas Hall (d. 1665), The Works of George Swinnock, M.A., Vol. 4, The Beauty of Magistracy, pp. 221-222:

So magistrates should be very tender over the messengers of Christ, who are the best friends, if they be faithful, that princes have in the world. Magistracy and ministry, the word and the sword, should go together. The pulpit guards the throne; hence Nathan is called the friend of David, 1 Kings 4:5; king Joram calls Elijah his father, 2 Kings 6:21; and Jehoshaphat calls the Levites his sons, 2 Chron 29:11; and Hezekiah spake comfortable, delightful, pleasing words to the hearts of the Levites, 2 Chron 30:22. The magistrate must protect their persons from violence, and their maintenance from the encroachment of cruel cormorants, lest, by famishing them, he bring a famine of the word upon the people. He must plant the word where it is wanting, and continue it where it is planted. It was well observed by Queen Elizabeth, when the justices of peace in the county of Suffolk met her Majesty in progress, every one of them having a minister by him, I see the reason now, saith the queen, why the county of Suffolk is better governed than other counties; it is because the word and the sword go together. Then church and state are like to flourish when Moses and Aaron, Zerubbabel and Joshua, Zech 4:14, go hand in hand together. When the minister reproves sin, and the magistrate punisheth it; when the magistrate makes use of the minister's direction, and the minister enjoys the magistrate's protection; when Joshua joins with Eleazar, and David consults with Nathan and Gad, the prophets of the Lord; and Josiah with Huldah, and Uzziah with Zechariah the priest, then, and never till then, can we look to prosper, 2 Chron 26:5. It is Aaron's office to speak, but it is Moses's rod that works the wonders. Ministers must preach, and magistrates must punish offenders.

It's a Small Reformed World After All

Within Reformed and Presbyterian circles, family ties and ecclesiastical connections are often frequent and intertwined. The following are not household names to most, although they constitute some of the brightest lights among the universe of Christian minds and hearts, and certainly among the galaxy of 19th century Reformed and Presbyterian divines from Scotland.

William Henry Goold (1815-1897) was a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland (RPCS) until, as the moderator of the majority RPCS Synod, he helped to effect union between that group (which had divided with the smaller branch of the RPCS over the issue of voting and the oath of allegiance) and the Free Church of Scotland (FCS) in 1876 and became moderator of the FCS in 1877. He is most famous for editing the Works of John Owen. He served on a 'Council of Publication,' along with James Begg, Thomas Smith and others, which edited and republished Puritan works, include those of Richard Sibbes and Thomas Goodwin, William Gouge's Commentary on Hebrews, Samuel Smith on Psalm 1, Richard Gilpin's Treatise of Satan's Temptations, etc. Goold also edited some British editions of works by A.A. Hodge and served as editor of The Reformed Presbyterian Magazine, as well as professor of divinity in the RPCS. His father was William Goold (1776-1844), also an RPCS minister. His sister was Janet Helen Goold.

In 1840, the elder William Goold performed the wedding ceremony for his daughter Janet who married George Smeaton (1814-1889), who started his ministerial career in the Church of Scotland but became one of the "Disruption Worthies" who founded the FCS, as well as a highly regarded professor of exegetical theology at New College in Edinburgh, and author of notable works on the Holy Spirit (The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 1882); the Atonement (The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself, 1868, and The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles, 1870) and the Establishment Principle (National Christianity and Scriptural Union, 1871; The Scottish Theory of Ecclesiastical Establishments, 1875; and the preface to 1871 edition of Thomas M'Crie the Elder's Statement of the Difference). George Smeaton was reckoned by James MacGregor "to possess 'the best constituted theological intellect in Christendom'" (Ian Hamilton in Nigel M. de S. Cameron, ed., Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, p. 779) and W.J. Grier describes him as "the most eminent scholar of the set of young men who with [Robert Murray] McCheyne and the Bonars [Horatius and Andrew] sat at the feet of [Thomas] Chalmers."

In 1846, the younger (William H.) Goold married Margaret Spiers Symington, daughter of William Symington (1795-1862), also an RPCS minister and author of On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (1834) and Messiah the Prince (1839), perhaps the most famous treatise written on the Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ, as well as a biographical sketch of Stephen Charnock. The William H. Goold family had nine children altogether, one of whom was named George Smeaton Goold (1854-1940).

William H. Goold, George Smeaton (Goold's brother-in-law), William Symington (Goold's father-in-law) and Andrew Symington (1785-1853, brother of William Symington and an RPCS minister as well as the professor of divinity whose seat was succeeded by William H. Goold) are all pictured together in the famous portrait of the 1843 Disruption Assembly created by David Octavius Hill, who pioneered the newly-invented art of photography by taking pictures of all the ministers present at the 1843 signing of the Act of Separation and using them to create a composite portrait which was completed in 1866. Goold and the Symingtons were present as RPCS representatives to witness the historic event.

William H. Goold, William Symington and Andrew Symington also each contributed to the 1841 Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation (Goold on Patronage; WS on Public Vows and the British Covenants; AS on the Headship of Christ over the Nations, as well as the Introduction).

All in all, the Goold-Smeaton-Symington connections constitute a notable example of "It's a small, Reformed world after all."

The Government of Christ

Thomas Case, The Conclusion of the Morning Exercise in Puritan Sermons, 1659 - 1689, vol. v, pp. 520-521:

The government of Christ is to be owned publicly.

(i.) For, first, it is the will of Christ, who was appointed to be King of nations as well as "King of saints," (Rev. xv.3,) not only to erect himself a government in the hearts of his people, but also to be publicly owned by nations, as to the religion which he hath established. There is a national acknowledgment of Christ, as well as a personal and ecclesiastical. Christ is personally owned, when we receive him into our hearts: He is ecclesiastically owned, by his worship in the churches of the saints: and nationally owned, when the laws and constitutions of the civil government are framed so as to advance the interest of his sceptre, and the Christian religion is made a national profession. This is spoken of in many places of scripture. (Gen. xvii.8; xviii.18; Isai. lv.5; lx.12; Matt. xxviii.19, 20.)

Circa Sacra, Not In Sacris

William Hetherington, Introduction to Robert Shaw's An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Another decided and great merit of the Confession consists in the clear and well-defined statement which it makes of the principles on which alone can securely rest the great idea of the co-ordination, yet mutual support, of the civil and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions. It is but too usual for people to misunderstand those parts of the Confession which treat of these jurisdictions – some accusing those passages of containing Erastian concessions, and others charging them with being either lawless or intolerant. The truth is, they favour no extreme. Proceeding upon the sacred rule, to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s, they willingly ascribe to the civil magistrate a supreme power in the State—all that belongs to his province, not merely with regard to his due authority over the persons and property of men, but also with regard to what pertains to his own official mode of rendering homage to the King of kings. It is in this latter department of magisterial duty that what is called the power of the civil magistrate, circa sacra – about religious matters, consists. But there his province ends, and he has no power in sacris—in religious matters. This is most carefully guarded in the leading proposition of chapter xxx.:— "The Lord Jesus christ, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of Church Officers, distinct from the Civil Magistrate. The leading Erastians of that period, learned and subtle as they were, felt in impossible to evade the force of that proposition, and could but refuse to give to it the sanction of the Legislature. They could not, however, prevail upon the Assembly either to modify or suppress it; and there it remains, and must remain, as the unanswered and unanswerable refutation of the Erastian heresy by the Westminster Assembly of Divines. In modern times it has been too much the custom of the opponents of Erastianism tacitly to grant the Erastian argument—or, at least, the principle on which it rests by admitting, or even asserting, that if a Church be established, it must cease to have a separate and independent jurisdiction, and must obey the laws of the State, even in spiritual matters; but then declaring, that as this is evidently wrong, there ought to be no Established Church. There is more peril to both civil and religious liberty in this mode of evading Erastianism than is commonly perceived; for, if it were generally admitted that an Established Church ought to be subject, even in spiritual matters, to the civil jurisdiction of the State, then would civil rulers have a direct and admitted interest in establishing a Church, not for the sake of promoting Christianity, nor with the view of rendering homage to the Prince of the kings of the earth, but for the purpose of employing the Church as a powerful engine of State policy. That they would avail themselves of such an admission is certain; and this would necessarily tend to produce a perilous contest between the defenders of religious liberty and the supporters of arbitrary power; and if the issue should be the triumph of Erastianism, that issue would inevitably involve the loss of both civil and religious liberty in the blending of the two jurisdictions—which is the very essence of absolute despotism. Of this the framers of our Confession were well aware; and, therefore, they strove to procure the well-adjusted and mutual counterpoise and co-operation of the two jurisdictions, as the best safeguards of both civil and religious liberty, and as founded on the express authority of the Word of God. It never yet has been proved, from either Scripture or reason, that they were wrong, although their views have been much misunderstood and grievously misrepresented. But, instead of prosecuting this topic, we refer to the comment on those chapters which treat of the civil magistrate, of synods, and of Church censures, as giving a very accurate and intelligible explanation of the doctrine of the Confession on these subjects.

The Confession of Faith has often been accused of advocating intolerant and persecuting principles. It is, however, in truth, equally free from latitudinarian laxity on the one hand, and intolerance on the other. An intelligent and candid perusal of chapter xx., "On Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience," ought of itself to refute all such calumnies. The mind of man never produced a truer or nobler proposition than the following:—"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship." The man who can comprehend, entertain, and act upon that principle, can never arrogate an overbearing and intolerant authority over the conscience of his fellowman, much less wield against him the weapons of remorseless persecution. But there is a very prevalent, and yet very false, method of thinking, or pretending to think, respecting toleration and liberty of conscience. Many seem to be of opinion that toleration consists in making no distinction between truth and error, but regarding them with equal favour. This opinion, if carefully analysed, would be found to be essentially of an infidel character. Many seem to think that by liberty of conscience is meant, that every man should be at liberty to act in everything according to his own inclination, without regard to the feelings, convictions, and rights of other men. This would, indeed, be to convert liberty into lawlessness, and to make conscience of licentiousness. But the Confession proceeds upon the principle that truth can be distinguished from error, right from wrong; that though conscience cannot be compelled, it may be enlightened; and that when sinful, corrupt, and prone to licentiousness, men may be lawfully restrained from the commission of such excesses as are offensive to public feeling, and injurious to the moral welfare of the community. If this be intolerance, it is a kind of intolerance of which none will complain but those who wish to be free from all restraint of law human or divine. Nothing, in our opinion, but a wilful determination to misrepresent the sentiments expressed in the Confession of Faith, or a culpable degree of wilful ignorance respecting the true meaning of these sentiments, could induce any man to accuse it of favouring intolerant and persecuting principles. Certainly the conduct of those who framed it gave no countenance to such an accusation, though that calumny has been often and most pertinaciously asserted. On this point, also, it would be well if people would take the trouble to ascertain what precise meaning the framers of the Confession gave to the words which they employed; for it is not doing justice to them and their work to adopt some modern acceptation of a term used by them in a different sense, and then to charge them with holding the sentiment conveyed by the modern use or misuse of that term. Yet this is the method almost invariably employed by the assailants of the Confession of Faith.