More on the Judicial Laws of the Old Testament

Almost two years ago, I posted The Judicial Laws of the Old Testament. If you are interested in the topic, I would recommend you begin there. What follows is a supplement to that post, with quotes from other writers on the topic to further support what I wrote there. 

William Perkins 

William Perkins (1558-1602) was a leading English theologian during the Elizabethan era. He was especially influential among the Puritans, including those who attended the Westminster Assembly. He wrote the following about the judicial laws of the Old Testament in A discourse of conscience (1596), p. 17-18 (spelling modernized). Notice how he is speaking of the relevance of these laws to nations and commonwealths, and how he makes the same twofold distinction I mention in my earlier post, and how he teaches that judicial laws of common (general) equity are, in respect of their substance, binding. 

But touching other nations and specially Christian commonwealths in these days, the case is otherwise. Some are of the opinion, that the whole judicial law is wholly abolished: and some again run to the other extreme, holding that the judicial laws bind Christians as straightly as the Jews: but no doubt they are both are wide; and the safest course is the keep to the mean between both. Therefore the judicial laws of Moses according to the substance and scope thereof must distinguished in which respects they are of two sorts. Some of them are laws of particular equity, some of common equity. Laws of particular equity, are such as prescribe justice according to the particular estate and condition of the Jews’ commonwealth and to the circumstances thereof time, place, persons, things, actions. Of this kind was the law, that the brother should raise up seed to his brother and many such like and none of them bind us because they were framed and tempered to a particular people.

Judicials of common equity are such as are made according to the law or instinct of nature common to all men: and these, in respect of their substance, bind the consciences not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles: for they were not given to the Jews as they were Jews, that is, a people received into the covenant above all other nations, brought from Egypt to the land of Canaan, of whom the Messiah according to the flesh was to come: but they were given to them as they were mortal men subject to the order and laws of nature as all other nations are. Again, judicial laws, so far forth as they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature are moral: and therefore binding in conscience, as the moral law.

Perkins goes on to describe that "a judicial law may be known to be a law of common equity" if either of two things be found in it: first, if wise men among the nations have by natural reason judged the same to be just and necessary, enacting laws the same in substance in their commonwealths; or second, "if it serve directly to explain and confirm any of the ten precepts of the Decalogue: or, if it serve directly to maintain and uphold any of the three estates of the family, the commonwealth, the Church. And whether this be so or no, it will appear, if we do but consider the matter of the law, and the reasons or considerations upon which the Lord was moved to give the same unto the Jews." He illustrates this by two such laws of common equity, that murderers be put to death and that the adulterer and adulteress should die the death.

Synopsis of Purer Theology

The Synopsis of Purer Theology, also known as “the Leiden Synopsis,” was an important and influential theological textbook from four professors of the University of Leiden first published in 1625. The following quotation is from the English translation published by Davenant Press in 2023 (the brackets in the quote are in that edition). Disputation 18, section 51 states,

Even to the present-day governing officials and their subjects one and all are obliged to obey those precepts in this political law that belong to the universal law; however, the ones that belong to the particular Jewish [political] law have become obsolete along with the Mosaic system of government.

Note again the distinction between general/universal and particular, with the precepts of the judicial/political law that belong to the universal law binding present-day governing officials and their subjects.

James Ussher

James Ussher (1581-1656) was the Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland and was invited to serve as a member of the Westminster Assembly. While he declined due to his royalist principles, he nevertheless had an influence on the assembly. One source of this influence was his book, The Body of Divinity (1645). Here is what that book has to say about the judicial laws (p. 204).

Did God give no other law but the Morall law onely?

Yes, he added the Ceremoniall and Judiciall laws, as speciall explications and applications of the law Morall, unto that present Church and people the Israelites.

What was the Ceremoniall law?

That law which did set down orders for direction in rites of outward worship, shadowing the grace of the Gospel (Heb. 10. 1, &c.)

Are we bound to keep and observe those laws?

No, for the substance being now exhibited, those shadows are utterly abolished by the death of Christ, and therefore the use of them now, would be a kind of denyall of his death.

What call you the Judiciall law?

That wherein God appointed a form of Politique and Civill government of the Common-wealth of the Jews, which therefore is ceased with the dissolution of that State, for which it was ordained; saving only in the common equity.

Is this law utterly revoked and abolished by Christ?

No; for he came not to overturn any good government of the Common-wealth, much lesse that which was appointed by God himself.

May not Christian Magistrates then swerve any thing from those laws of government, which were set down by Moses?

In some circumstances they may, but in the generall equity and substance they may not.

What Judiciall laws are immutably to be observed now of Christian Magistrates?

Those which have reasons annexed unto them, & specially those wherin God hath appointed death for the punishment of heinous offences.

What is the Morall law?

That which commandeth the perfection of godlinesse & righteousnesse, and directeth us in our duties to God and man, Deut. 5. 32. 12. 32.

The parallels to the language of the Westminster Confession (WCF 19.4) are noteworthy. Note also how he says that the judicial law is not utterly revoked and abolished by Christ, and that while Christian magistrates may swerve from those laws in some circumstances, they may not swerve from them in the general equity and substance. "Circumstances" are contrasted with "substance," as he also contrasts circumstance with substance with regard to worship (p. 225) - he is not using "in some circumstances" as we might to say "on some occasions." And he says that certain judicial laws are immutably to be observed now by Christian magistrates. As can be gathered from the context, "Christian magistrates" are mentioned in distinction from the Jewish magistrates of the Old Testament, not in contrast to unbelieving magistrates. The point is about the abiding authority of these laws on nations in this era ("now").

Ashbel Green 

Quotes from the time of the Westminster Assembly are most relevant for understanding its meaning, but it is useful also to note that the same way of speaking was maintained by later American Presbyterians as well. Ashbel Green (1762-1848) studied under John Witherspoon and was a Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia, a member of the synod in 1788 that amended the Westminster standards and organized the General Assembly of the PCUSA, a chaplain of the US House of Representatives, and president of Princeton College. In his Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, vol. 2 (1841), p. 19, he makes the same distinction with regard to the judicial law (notice especially the last sentence; it is not just the law of nature, but any statute founded in the law of nature, that is still of binding force).

The judicial law of the ancient Israelites was that system of statutes which was given by God, for the temporal government of the Jews. It chiefly respected them as they were a nation distinct from all others — a theocracy, in which Jehovah sustained to them, not only the relation of Creator and Sovereign Lord, but that of a national head, or political chief. Some of these judicial laws, however, did not relate to the Jews as a peculiar people, but had their foundation clearly in the law of nature itself. This is, by no means, of small importance to be observed: because, although the judicial law, given by Moses, is completely abrogated, so far as it respected the peculiar constitution of the Jewish nation, yet, so far as it contains any statute founded in the law of nature, common to all nations, it is still of binding force.

Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge (1797–1878) grew up as a member of Ashbel Green's congregation and then attended Princeton College while Green was its president. Hodge went on to become a leading American Presbyterian theologian, serving as a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1822 to his death in 1878. In his Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (p. 267-269), he mentions several classes of law in the Bible: (1) laws founded on the nature of God, (2) laws founded on the permanent relations of men in their present state of existence, and (3) laws founded in certain temporary relations of men. At this point, while discussing the third category, he comments on the judicial law. 

All those laws, therefore, in the Old Testament, which had their foundation in the peculiar circumstances of the Hebrews, ceased to be binding when the old dispensation passed away.

It is often difficult to determine to which of the last two classes certain laws of the Old Testament belong; and therefore, to decide whether they are still obligatory or not. Deplorable evils have flowed from mistakes as to this point. … On the other hand, there are some of the judicial laws of the Old Testament which were really founded on the permanent relations of men, and therefore, were intended to be of perpetual obligation, which many have repudiated as peculiar to the old dispensation. Such are some of the laws relating to marriage, and to the infliction of capital punishment for the crime of murder. If it be asked, How are we to determine whether any judicial law of the Old Testament is still in force? the answer is first, When the continued authority of such law is recognized in the New Testament. That for Christians is decisive. And secondly, If the reason or ground for a given law is permanent, the law itself is permanent.

After this he also goes on to mention a fourth class of laws: positive laws, driving all their authority from the explicit command of God.

Robert Shaw

Across the sea in Scotland, we find Robert Shaw (1795-1863), a Presbyterian pastor in Whitburn, writing the following about the judicial laws in his comments on WCF 19.4 in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith (1845).

The judicial law respected the Jews in their political capacity, or as a nation, and consisted of those institutions which God prescribed to them for their civil government. This law, as far as the Jewish polity was peculiar, has also been entirely abolished; but as far as it contains any statute founded in the law of nature common to all nations, it is still obligatory. 

Conclusion

While applications of this interpretive principle could vary, yet the principle was rather stable. It was a common principle by the 1640s and then was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith (19.4). Nevertheless, the general equity clause of WCF 19.4 is often overlooked today. All too often, people are quick to distance themselves from any abiding authority of the judicial laws in nations today.

While the judicial laws were given to a particular people in a particular situation (with both cultural and redemptive-historical particularities), the judicial laws of the Old Testament remain relevant for the governance of modern commonwealths. We neither dismiss them nor copy-and-paste them, but we distinguish. While the judicial laws expired with the state of ancient Israel, and do not bind states today insofar as they were peculiarly fitted to that state, yet they are binding on states today in substance insofar as they are of general equity.

Lutheran

As I said at the beginning of this study of denominations, the Protestant movement during the Reformation gradually formed into two parts: Lutheran and Reformed. In the early decades of the Reformation, there was a possibility that they might present a united Protestant front, but the distinction manifested at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) would become more permanent in the middle and late 1500s as the early generation passed away and confessional documents crystallized issues and positions. The Reformed churches came to hold to documents like the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 39 Articles, and (later) the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, while the Lutheran churches would hold to some or all of the documents included in the Book of Concord (1580). The initial point of difference between the two traditions was the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.

History

Some notable Lutheran ministers include Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Chemnitz, Henry Muhlenberg, C.F.W. Walther, Gerhard Forde, J.A.O. Preus II, Hans Fiene, and Jordan Cooper.

October 31, 1517 - Martin Luther, professor at Wittenberg, publishes his 95 theses concerning indulgences. This leads to the Heidelberg Disputation (1518) and the Disputation of Leipzig (1519)

1520 - Luther writes four short books. In December, Luther burns the Papal bull that threatened him with excommunication if he did not recant 41 statements. He is then excommunicated by the Pope.

1521 - The Imperial Diet of Worms; Luther refuses to recant before the emperor, Charles V. Safe in Wartburg Castle, Luther translates the New Testament into German (the Old Testament would be completed in 1534). In the same year, 24-year-old Philip Melanchthon writes the first Protestant systematic theology, Loci communes.

1526 - At the Diet of Speyer, local princes are permitted to decide religious issues. This is allowed to gain political unity in the Holy Roman Empire amid a war with France and the Pope. This gives opportunity for Protestant reforms.

1529 - Martin Luther writes the Small Catechism and the Large Catechism.

1530 - The Protestants present their confession of faith, written by Melanchthon with Luther’s approval, to the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg. Pressure from hostile Turks motivate the emperor to tolerate Protestants to maintain political unity. Protestantism also spreads to Scandinavia during this time. An Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg Confession is written by Melanchthon in 1531.

1537 - In preparation for a possible general church council, Luther writes the Smalcald Articles and Melanchthon writes The Power and Primacy of the Pope.

1546 - Martin Luther dies in February. In June, the emperor launches the Schmalkald War to subdue the Protestants.

1555 - A treaty is made, the Peace of Augsburg, which allows each territorial prince to decide whether the territory would be Lutheran or Roman Catholic.

1546-1577 - After Luther’s death, several controversies were debated in Lutheran circles on issues like Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, original sin and free will, antinomianism, and adiaphora (things indifferent). Some Lutherans were closer to a Reformed understanding, prompting the charge of Crypto-Calvinism, while others were further away.

1577 - The Formula of Concord (its “Epitome” and its “Solid Declaration”) was produced to bring about unity among the Lutheran churches, addressing the controversies.

1580 - The Book of Concord was published, consisting of the three ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. It gave unity to Lutherans and was adopted by many German Lutheran churches and lands, but not all. Some regions continued to only hold some of the documents as authoritative (usually regions that had not been disturbed by the controversies or that desired closer relations with Reformed churches and countries).

1600s-1700s
The Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation came back with a vengeance at the beginning of this century, and the 30 Years War broke out in Central Europe, in which Protestantism struggled for its freedom. Gustavus Adolphus was an important Lutheran king who kept the Protestant cause from falling at that time. After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, these lands sought to recover. Pietism grew in the late 1600s and early 1700s in Lutheran lands as a movement in response to low religious conditions. Pietism was inspired by English Puritans and was itself an inspiration for later Methodism. Yet, this movement could be unbalanced. Others stressed the importance of orthodoxy and the church. At the same time, Lutheranism came to America in colonies like Pennsylvania. This era also saw the rise of Enlightenment Rationalism in Europe.

1800s-1900s
In this century immigration from Germany and Scandinavia to America increased. One cause was religious in nature, as when Prussian authorities sought to force Reformed and Lutheran churches to unite in one communion. Some of these “Old Lutherans” who refused to comply fled from Saxony to Missouri and joined with other Lutherans to form the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. This denomination was organized in 1847 as the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States.

Other Lutherans formed themselves into various synods, often locally and then merging with others. In 1982, the ELCA was formed by a merger of three other Lutheran denominations. (1) The American Lutheran Church was composed of predominantly German, Danish, and Norwegian Lutherans, with a geographical center in the Upper Midwest (some of its more conservative churches refused to join the ELCA and formed the American Association of Lutheran Churches). (2) The Lutheran Church in America was centered more on the East Coast, with roots back to colonial times and the earlier waves of German and Swedish immigration, along with some Finnish and Danish churches in the Midwest. (3) The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches was formed by 250 churches that left the LCMS after the LCMS maintained a conservative position on things like biblical inerrancy.

The three main Lutheran denominations in the USA today are the ELCA (~3.7 million), the LCMS (~2.1 million), the WELS (~380,000; Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; centered in the Upper Midwest). The ELCA is generally liberal, while the LCMS and WELS are confessional. There are a number of other smaller denominations (e.g. AALC, AFLC).

Doctrine

Confessional Lutherans hold to many doctrines in common with us Presbyterians. They hold to core creedal doctrines and core Protestant doctrines like justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, and Scripture alone as the rule of faith and life. The LCMS and WELS have maintained biblical authority and the proclamation of the gospel against the inroads of liberalism. I have much appreciation for them and their work. 

Some Lutheran traditions (often those with Scandinavian roots) do not subscribe to the full Book of Concord, and thus have greater doctrinal diversity.

Concerning God’s sovereignty in salvation, Lutherans who hold to the Book of Concord basically affirm that fallen man is unable to will that which is truly good, that God unconditionally elects people unto salvation, and that he sovereignly and effectually calls the elect to salvation by his grace. But they deny limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints (they believe in the perseverance of the elect, but not of all believers). They object to “double predestination” (a debatable term even among the Reformed) and stress the need to be guided in life by God’s revealed will in his word (as we do too).

Lutherans who hold to the Book of Concord affirm the three uses of the law, although they can differ from the Reformed in emphasis (they also number the first two in reverse order). Some other Lutherans, like Gerhard Forde, do not teach the third use of the law.

Confessional Lutherans, like us, hold that the sacraments are means of grace, along with the word. They deny that the sacraments give grace by the outward act, and affirm that the promised things offered in the sacrament are only received by faith. The sacraments are used to strengthen our faith.

It seems that they usually assert that all baptized infants received what is promised in their baptism at that time, although I have not found this yet in their confessional documents. To be more precise, they believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in their hearts, a faith by which the child receives what is promised. This is also a faith that must be fed and strengthened, as they believe a person can fall away from faith. Thus, they do not believe that all baptized infants are elect, and they affirm the need to teach and encourage children to believe and repent and diligently use the means of grace. They do not believe that baptism is necessary for justification (as the Restorationists do). For example, if an outsider comes to faith, he is justified for Christ’s sake alone through faith alone right then, and thus is to be baptized. 

Confessional Lutherans, like us, deny that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice for sins and that the substance of the bread and wine turn into that of Christ’s body and blood. Unlike us, they believe that Christ’s body and blood are substantially united with the elements and received in the mouth by all who partake (although only to the benefit of those who receive it by faith). Rather than appealing to the work of the Spirit to explain how Christ’s body and blood are given to us in the Supper, they appeal to the ubiquity of Christ’s body and blood, arguing that in his glorified state his human nature can be in more than one location at the same time. Many of them only administer the Lord’s Supper to those who agree with the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (WELS is most strict, LCMS is pretty closed, and ELCA is wide open).

Worship

While some of their churches have adopted more contemporary styles, their worship is usually liturgical and dignified. They are known for their rich hymnody and music. While they do not worship images, they do not object to the presence of images of Christ (Reformed churches object to the images themselves). 

Church Government

Lutheranism does not have a distinct church government. Their church government varies, usually with a mix of congregational, presbyterian, and episcopal influences. They see the pastoral office as the only divinely ordained office, with churches free to have other officers like elders to help. Their view of the pastoral office is similar to the Reformed view, and historically their use of elders has been similar (although not quite as robust) to that in Reformed churches. The LCMS is composed of ministers and congregations, has regional districts and a synodical convention, and tends toward congregational government in their churches (e.g. excommunication is by the minister and the congregation).

Joy to the World: A Christmas Song

I have sometimes seen people dispute whether “Joy to the World” was meant to refer to Christ's first coming or to his second coming. The answer can be found in the writings of the hymn's author. While I had previously noticed the song's original title, I more recently noticed that Watts writes rather directly about what the song is about. Briefly put, the song was written about Christ's first coming and the kingdom he established then.

The song is a paraphrase of Psalm 98 written by Isaac Watts (1674-1748) entitled, "The Messiah's Coming and Kingdom." It was first published in Watts' The Psalms of David: imitated in the language of the New Testament, and apply'd to the Christian state and worship (1719). In that book, Watts wrote that he understood Psalms 96-98 to refer to “Christ's Incarnation, his setting up his Gospel-Kingdom to judge or rule the Gentiles, and the Judgment and Destruction of the Heathen Idols.” While he said that in some of his paraphrases of these Psalms he also made mention of Christ’s second coming due to the parallels, he explicitly notes that in his paraphrases of Psalm 98 he refers to what he understood to be the first and chief sense (i.e. Christ’s first coming and present reign).

You can find the book online here. With more context, here is his first comment regarding Psalms 96-98 (p. 248), 

In this and the two following Psalms The first coming of Christ into the World is represented in a Prophetic Style, as tho' he were coming the second time to the last Judgment: But that Christ's Incarnation, his setting up his Gospel-Kingdom to judge or rule the Gentiles, and the Judgment and Destruction of the Heathen Idols, is the true Design of these three Psalms, is evident from several Expressions in them and particularly because the Earth, the Fields, Sea, &c. are call'd to rejoice; whereas the final Judgment of the World is represented dreadfull to all Nature, and to the Nations of the Earth. See Rev. 17, and Rev. 20.11, and 2 Pet. 3.7, 10. Yet since this last Coming has some-thing in it Parallel to his first, I have in the different parts of the Psalms referr'd to Both. 

And this is his comment inserted in between his two paraphrases of Psalm 98 (the second of which being Joy to the World),

In these two Hymns which I have formed out of the 98th Psalm I have fully exprest what I esteem to be the first and chief Sense of the holy Scriptures, both in this and the 96th Psalm, whose Conclusions are both alike. 

I don't think you need to agree with his last argument for his interpretation (the contrast between the ways the comings are described) to agree with the interpretation. After all, all creation groans with hopeful expectation for Christ's return (Rom. 8:19-21). But not only do "several expressions in them" indicate a primary reference to Christ's first coming and the kingdom he then established, but this also makes sense from the perspective of the Psalmist. In agreeing with Watts, I would also point out that the second coming brings to a culmination what was established by his first coming and his current reign.

In this interpretation of Psalm 98, Watts agreed with the interpretations of fellow English nonconformists Matthew Poole (1624–1679) and Matthew Henry (1662-1714). Matthew Poole wrote, "The matter and scope of this Psalm is the same with the former, and is an evident prediction of the coming of the Messias, and of the blessed effects thereof. The psalmist exhorteth Jews, Gentiles, and all the creatures to praise God for his truth and salvation." And while Matthew Henry granted that the end of the Psalm may refer principally to the second coming, yet concerning the Psalm in general, he wrote,

This psalm is to the same purport with the Ps. 96:1–13 Ps. 97:1–12; it is a prophecy of the kingdom of the Messiah, the settling of it up in the world, and the bringing of the Gentiles into it. The Chaldee entitles it a prophetic psalm. It sets forth, I. The glory of the Redeemer, Ps. 98:1–3. II. The joy of the redeemed, Ps. 98:4–9. If we in a right manner give to Christ this glory, and upon right grounds take to ourselves this joy, in singing this psalm, we sing it with understanding. If those who saw Christ’s triumph thus, much more reason have we to do so who see these things accomplished and share in the better things provided for us, Heb. 11:40.

The Son of God took to himself human nature, being born of the virgin Mary, that he might be the last Adam, bringing life instead of death to the world, bringing blessing instead of curse. He was born to die for our sins and rise to life again, establishing his reign now in this earth among the nations of the earth by his word and Spirit. The light is shining more and more, and the darkness is passing away. "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8). The purpose and effect of Christ's incarnation give us ample reason to rejoice in it. 

For further reflection upon Joy to the World, here is a 4-minute video I made six years ago about this Christmas hymn. 

Restorationist

The next denominational tradition that we come to in this series is the Restorationist tradition. Restorationist denominations include Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Churches.

The Restorationist movement arose in the early 1800s in Kentucky and western Pennsylvania amid the Second Great Awakening as an attempt to bypass denominational divisions and restore the original order of the early church. They discarded creeds and confessions and denominational names. Instead, they sought to affirm only the plain and simple doctrines of Scripture. One of their early slogans (ironically something of creed itself) was “We have no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the Divine.” Another one was “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” As one early writer explained, “Henceforth, the plain and simple teaching of the Word of God itself was to be their guide. God himself should speak to them, and they should receive and repeat His words alone. No remote inferences, no fanciful interpretations, no religious theories of any kind, were to be allowed to alter or pervert its obvious meaning.”

The Restorationist movement is strongest in Kentucky, Tennessee, the southern Midwest, and the southern Great Plains. 

History

Two Restorationist groups were founded by two Presbyterian ministers, Thomas Campbell and Barton Stone. These groups merged in 1832 as the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ (later a group split off from them called the Churches of Christ). These churches gave up infant baptism and Calvinism and more, with some variety among them.

Barton Stone in Kentucky (Christian Church)

Barton Stone became a Presbyterian through the influence of James McGready and was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in the 1790s. But he soon began to question Calvinist doctrines (or had already begun to do so, subscribing to the doctrinal standards only as far as they are consistent with Scripture, rather than because they are consistent with Scripture).

Stone participated in the revivals and camp meetings that broke out around 1800 in Kentucky, including the Cane Ridge revival of 1801. Camp meetings originated from Presbyterian communion services, and one of the largest was the Cane Ridge revival in 1801. 18 Presbyterian ministers along with some Baptists and Methodists ministers preached to the people. 750 of those present received tokens to take Communion, but about 15,000 people were in attendance. It lasted a week (i.e. until food ran out). 

Much good was done through these revivals, despite weird excesses, but some of the energy was misdirected. In the midst of the excitement, holding to Calvinistic doctrines and Presbyterian qualifications for office seemed less important than evangelism. One group eventually formed the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Another similar group of four ministers (including Stone) formed themselves into the Springfield Presbytery in 1803, independent of the Synod of Kentucky, after the synod censured a minister from deviating from the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Springfield Presbytery attracted 15 churches and then dissolved in 1804. But when it dissolved, the last six ministers produced a document, determining to be known only as Christians. Their followers would be the nucleus of the Christian Church, although all but one of Stone’s fellow signers either returned to the Presbyterian church or joined the Shakers. But it continued to gain followers and had about 12,000 people by 1830.

Barton Stone denied Calvinism, infant baptism, and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement (preferring a view more like Charles Finney’s moral influence theory). He also basically denied the doctrine of the Trinity (he seems to have denied the eternality of Christ and to have argued that the three persons are one in purpose and mind rather than in substance, similar to the later Mormons). These views did not necessarily represent the churches connected with him, as they were each independent, and he dropped his explanations of the Trinity and the atonement as he united with the Campbells.

Thomas and Alexander Campbell in Pennsylvania (Disciples of Christ)

Thomas Campbell (1763-1854) began as an Associate Presbyterian from northern Ireland in a context where there had been many strong divisions among splintering Presbyterians. The “Reformed Presbyterians” had remained separate from the Church of Scotland in 1690. In 1733, the Associate Presbyterians left the Church of Scotland. Then the Associate Presbyterians split in 1747 into the Burghers and Anti-Burghers over an oath required of the burgesses of towns. Both groups split again in the 1790s over the paragraph in their confession regarding church-state relations (WCF 23.3) into old light and new light. Thomas Campbell was a minister in the Old-Light Anti-Burgher Associate Presbyterians. These divisions were especially strong because each group insisted that it was the true church in the region and did not practice communion with the others (to recognize the church you left by communion with it would imply your own group was schismatic for maintaining separation from it).

While the Restorationist movement was unfortunate, I can sympathize with Thomas Campbell's desire for Christian unity in the context all these divisions. Unfortunately, he reacted to this situation in such as way as to swing to an opposite extreme and ironically led the formation of another denomination.

When Thomas moved from Ireland to western Pennsylvania he was initially received by the Associate Presbyterians there in 1807. When he began giving the Lord’s Supper to believers from other denominations, controversy broke out and he renounced the jurisdiction of the denomination in 1808-1809. He formed a Christian Association united by an Declaration and Address, sought ministerial communion with the mainline Presbyterian church, but after this was declined, they struck out on their own as an independent church in 1811. He was also joined by his son, Alexander Campbell, who would continue as a leader of the movement until his death in 1866.

In 1816, Alexander preached a sermon on the law before a group of Baptists, alienating the Baptists by arguing that the Old Testament as a whole (not simply the ceremonial law) was for the Mosaic dispensation and was not binding on Christians. “The Bible alone” became in essence, “the New Testament alone.” While Alexander objected to aspects of the Calvinist terminology for the Trinity, he was orthodox in substance on that doctrine, as well as on the atonement (that it not only reconciles man to God, but also God to man).

Walter Scott

Walter Scott was raised as a Presbyterian in Scotland and became convinced of Restorationist distinctives in America and became a noted evangelist connected with the Campbells. He was also noted for describing the gospel as six things, three from man and three from God: faith, repentance, and baptism; and the forgiveness of sins, gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life.

Relation to Mormonism

As the Unitarians came from the Congregationalists, and the Oneness Pentecostals from the Pentecostals, so the Mormons are the non-Trinitarian spin-off of the Restorationists (although even within Restorationism there were some with weak or anti Trinitarian views). Mormonism was another attempt to transcend denominational differences, to go back to the early church, and to find unity in a simpler doctrine. But unlike Stone and Campbell, it added new books of revelation and went much further from Scripture in various heretical ways. Alexander Campbell was one of Mormonism’s first critics as it drew away followers, and he accused Joseph Smith of stealing ideas from him and Walter Scott.

Union in 1832

At the beginning of 1832, in Lexington, KY, the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church united under both names, Disciples of Christ/Christian Church.

Churches of Christ

This non-denominational denomination formed in 1832 split twice in the 1900s. In 1906, it split into the instrumental Disciples of Christ/Christian Church and the non-instrumental Churches of Christ (led by David Lipscomb). Around two decades later, due to the growth of liberalism in the Disciples of Christ, its more conservative churches stopped supporting the denominational missionary society. These independent churches became known as the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. The non-instrumental Churches of Christ were strongest in the south, the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ were strongest in the north, and the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church were strongest further west.

What We Have in Common

Churches of Christ have a high view of biblical (NT) authority. They are generally more orthodox on things like the Trinity than Barton Stone originally was. Because their churches are basically independent, there is some variety, and some of their pastors are more like us. They were originally Postmillennial and are generally Amillennial today (not Pre-millennial). While they hold to the necessity of baptism for justification, they do believe that faith in Christ is necessary (baptism does not work automatically). Their local church government (preacher, elders, and deacons) bears some resemblance to the Presbyterian system on a local level, with government by the elders.

Where We Differ

They have a distinctive biblicist insistence on simple doctrines from explicit teachings, combined with a belief that the Old Testament, while inspired, is not binding in the Christian dispensation. We Presbyterians believe instead that all of Scripture is "given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life" (WCF 1.2, cp. 2 Tim. 3:16) and that "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." (WCF 1.6).  

They are generally weak on theology. While not as bad as Barton Stone, they can be weak on articulating doctrines like the Trinity and the atonement, often avoiding non-biblical terms. But not everything in Scripture is explicitly taught (as arguments in Scripture itself demonstrate). Clarity can require special terminology. Creeds unite the church in the shared confession of the faith, clarify the church's message, and provide clarity in maintaining standards and discipline against falsehood. We must confess what Scripture teaches.

They deny the "five points of Calvinism" and generally hold to some version of Arminianism (usually a version that is worse than the Wesleyan version). They deny hereditary depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace (sometimes denying the concept of enabling grace), and the perseverance of the saints. But we assert that we fell in Adam and are so conceived in sin (Rom. 5, Ps. 51:5), and that God gave certain people to Christ to save, who are effectually drawn to Christ and saved in the end (John 6:37-40, 44-45), so that salvation is all of God's grace. 

Their idea of faith is not great. From what I have seen, it seems to me that their understanding of faith is sometimes too limited (simply assent to the Bible’s teachings) and sometimes too encompassing, with a murky border between faith and works.

They believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. As one statement says, “We connect with this grace-gift of God when by faith we surrender our lives at baptism.” It is not quite right to call it baptismal regeneration, because such a phrase assumes our understanding of regeneration. They would say a person should believe before being baptized, but deny that faith is a product of regeneration. Nor do they believe that baptism is a satisfaction or meritorious. It might be more accurate to call it baptismal justification by faith. They also believe that baptism ought to be by immersion. But we Presbyterians would point out that Abraham was justified by faith before he received any outward sign, and his experience is used as an example for us. Cornelius received the Spirit before being baptized. Baptism confirms as a seal. God does require a diligent use of the means of grace, but we are justified by faith alone, even before baptism.

Notes on the 1788 American Revision of WCF 23.3

In 1788, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia made a few minor amendments to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and Larger Catechism (WLC): (1) the reference to the civil magistrate in chapter 20 was omitted, (2) the third paragraph of chapter 23 on church-state relations was mostly re-written, (3) the second paragraph of chapter 31 on calling church councils was rewritten and combined with the first paragraph, and (4) the phrase “tolerating a false religion” was omitted from the list of sins in WLC 109, and (5) in WLC 142 “depopulations” was changed to “depredation.” You can see the full 1788 version here.

The change to chapter 31 was a long time coming, since even when the Church of Scotland first adopted these standards in 1647, the General Assembly stated a scruple regarding its understanding of that chapter. Besides that change, the most important amendment was to the paragraph in chapter 23 on church-state relations. What follows here are some observations and historical notes regarding this amendment and the perspective of some of the members of that synod regarding the magistrate and religion. Others have written on the topic and what I write here is not meant to be comprehensive. Yet I hope it will be a helpful supplement to the discussion.

Overview

The new version of WCF 23.3 reflected the new multi-denominational situation, something that had developed between the 1640s and the 1780s. It also dropped statements that had become contested and it sought to clarify the statement to dispel rumors of a revival of persecution against other denominations by Presbyterians (fears of a Presbyterian takeover persisted from the time of the American Revolution through at least the election of 1800). The new statement affirmed that the magistrate was to be the nursing father of “the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest…” It affirmed that magistrates should protect the church and preserve its liberty and not interfere with or hinder the government and discipline of any denomination of Christians. It also noted that the persons and good name of all their people (including non-Christians) were to be protected by the magistrates against injury, even when offered upon pretense of religion or infidelity. Vigilante violence against others on religious grounds was a reality in that era, and was not to be tolerated. Likewise, all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies were to be protected by the magistrates from molestation or disturbance. The synod did not change 23.2’s statement that the magistrate ought especially to maintain "piety, justice, and peace" (Baptists omitted "piety" from the list), nor did they change WLC 191's statement that we pray that the church would be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate. The USA was to be a Christian country, but one in which all Christian denominations would receive equal protection and in which the magistrate would not run the internal affairs of any.

Matters of Faith

One of the additions made to WCF 23.3 was to say that civil magistrates may not "in the least, interfere in matters of faith." But what is meant by interfering in "matters of faith"?

It is important to note that the phrase "matters of faith" also shows up in WCF 20.2 (unchanged from the original version). There is also a related phrase in chapter 31 ("controversies of faith").

In WCF 20.2, the point of the phrase is that the conscience is free from the doctrines of men in matters of faith (i.e. what is to be believed). "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, if matters of faith, or worship" (WCF 20.2).

In chapter 31 of the WCF, the point is that controversies of faith (i.e. doctrine) and cases of conscience are to be determined ministerially by church synods. "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience..." (31.2). 

These phrases were also used earlier in the 39 Articles (1571). Its 19th article explained that particular churches, like the Church of Rome, “hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.” Article 20 says that the church has “authority in Controversies of Faith…”

George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, agreed that “the determination and resolution from Scripture of controversies concerning the faith, the worship of God, the government of the church, cases of conscience” belonged to the church and “are not to be dispensed and administered by the civil magistrate.” Here his statement with more context from Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (1646), chapter 8:

There are two sorts of things belonging to the church. Some which are intrinsical, and belonging to the soul or inward man, directly and primarily. Such things are not to be dispensed and administered by the civil magistrate: I mean the word and sacraments, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the suspension or excommunication of church officers or members, the ordination or deposition of officers, the determination and resolution from Scripture of controversies concerning the faith, the worship of God, the government of the church, cases of conscience. These being in their nature, end, and use, merely spiritual, and belonging not to the outward man, but to the inward man or soul, are committed and entrusted to the pastors and other ruling officers of the church, and are not of civil and extrinsical, but of ecclesiastical and intrinsical cognisance and judgment. There are other things belonging to the church, which are extrinsical, and do properly belong to the outward man, and are common to the church with other human societies or corporations: things of this kind fall within the civil jurisdiction; for the churches of Christ, being societies of men and women, and parts of commonwealths, are accountable unto and punishable by the civil magistrate...

Gillespie’s full list is very similar to the revised first sentence of 23.3, "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith."

What we might learn from this is that the American revision was not a radical change, and that this change had precedent at least among the Scottish commissioners to the original assembly, who also agreed with what was stated in the original version of the WCF. The amendment clarified the meaning by drawing upon the doctrines already in the Confession of Faith concerning the liberty of conscience and the duty of church government.

It is noteworthy that a member of the synod that made the revision in 1788, Ashbel Green, in a thanksgiving sermon given in 1795, made this statement distinguishing between the infidel’s cry against state interference in matters of religion (broadly considered) and his objection to state interference in matters of conscience.

But if a nation unite in public thanksgiving its public functionaries must designate the time. To this, again, the malignant hatred of infidelity to all that bears the appearance of piety, has stated an objection. The magistrate, it cries, ought not to interfere in matters of religion. In matters of conscience we allow that he ought not; but if we acknowledge a God at all, it is the magistrate’s duty to lead the people to adore him. (p. 18)

When they said that magistrates must not interfere in the least in matters of faith, Green and the rest of the synod did not mean that the magistrate must be religiously neutral, or non-religious, or abstain from addressing religious matters like sabbath breaking, blasphemy, or days of religious observance. The reference was more limited than that, a reference to interfering with the church's doctrine and belief.

Ashbel Green 

In that same thanksgiving sermon, Green was grateful that in America no one sect of Christians endeavored to control or dictate to the consciences of another sect (p. 23), each paying his homage to God and the Savior on the ground of common and equal privilege (p. 24). Notice his emphasis on intra-Christian conflict. One factor in the American revision was accounting for multiple denominations, applying chapter 26 of the WCF to the matter. At the same time, Green also exhorted magistrates and legislators to 

Inculcate reverence to God, obedience to his laws, the superintendance of his providence, and amenableness to his bar. Inculcate these sentiments by your own example, and by framing and executing laws for the discountenance of vice. Recognize these truths by days of religious solemnity. Show especially that they are truths which govern in your minds and which you dare not violate. Your maxims, morals and manners, form those of the people at large, and you will find, too late, that they are incapable of government, if these foundations of it be taken away or rendered unfound. Believe it, also, that the frowns of Heaven will ever rest on a nation openly impious and profane. (p. 43-44)

Green's reference to the discountenance of vice recalls the fact that in 1793, he and other clergy in Philadelphia had petitioned the state legislature concerning "the passing of a law against Vice and Immorality" (available here). In particular, they wrote

We represent, that the legislative interposition is, in our apprehension, peculiarly necessary to make some effectual provision for the orderly and religious observance of the Lord's day; for the prevention and punishment of the profanation of the name of God, and every species of impious imprecation ; for regulating and lessening the number of houses where intoxicating liquors are sold and used; for the suppression of all places of gaming and lewd resort; and for the enacting of a law to prevent theatrical exhibitions of every sort.

Green also preached a sermon on a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer in 1798 entitled, "Obedience to the Laws of God, the Sure and Indispensable Defense of Nations." Again, he spoke against the attempts of some to exclude religion from the state.

The very truth is, infidels first endeavour to exclude religion from the state, that then they may give the name of morality to any set of principles they may choose to adopt, and that thus, in the end, they may fully accomplish their wishes by getting rid of both.

He exhorted his congregation, 

Let us resolve in God's name and strength, to act as well as to pray. Let those who have power be conjured to use it for him from whom all power is derived and to whom they must solemnly account for the manner in which they employ it. Let each of us, in our proper places and stations, be earnest, resolute and persevering, in promoting the work of reformation.

Nursing Fathers 

Another addition to WCF 23.3 was the description of the magistrates as nursing fathers of the church. "Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord..." The phrase and concept is biblical (Is. 49:23, 60:10, 12, 16) and the phrase had long been used by Presbyterians. It is related to the Larger Catechism's teaching that we should pray that the church be "countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate" (WLC 191). Thomas Ridgey, in his commentary on the Larger Catechism published in 1731, used the language of nursing fathers to explain this phrase in WLC 191,

We are to pray that the church may be encouraged by civil magistrates; that their government may be subservient to Christ's spiritual kingdom; that, according to God's promise, "kings may be" its "nursing fathers, and their queens" its "nursing mothers;" that by this means the church may have peace and safety...

Chad Van Dixhoorn notes the use of this phrase by Westminster divine, John Arrowsmith, and comments:

The phrase "nursing fathers" may have become Presbyterian code for a doctrine of an established church supported by civil magistrates, an arrangement that Arrowsmith and the great majority of assembly members favored, in keeping with the tradition of Calvin's Geneva. ("John Arrowsmith: A Theological Life" in Arrowsmith, Plans for Holy War, p. 25)

The 1788 revisions to the Westminster standards carried on this tradition, with provision for a multi-denominational church, emphasizing that the magistrate is duty-bound to the whole church, not just a denomination; and with greater clarity on the church’s liberty from interference in matters of faith. 

The synod did not forget to omit the phrase in WLC 191 (as some have speculated), but instead they actually added language in WCF 23.3 that referred to the same concept. This is another example of how the new language was an application of what was already in the standards.

George Duffield

Another Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia that was a member of the synod that made the revisions in 1788 was George Duffield. He had served as a chaplain to Continental Congress and the military, and would be the first clerk of the General Assembly in 1789. Earlier in 1776, as Pennsylvania was preparing its state constitution, Rev. Duffield wrote a paper arguing for a provision that the principal officers of state be required to profess Christianity. He appended a note to his paper in September, 1787 reaffirming what he had written.

Why was he reviewing the paper in 1787? Not only was the Constitutional Convention wrapping up in his city, but earlier that year he had participated in his synod’s action to propose minor changes to its Confession of Faith on church-state issues that would be approved in 1788.

His basic thesis in his paper was, “that they may, and ought to require a profession of christianity in general, such as a belief of the Holy Scriptures, to be of Divine authority, and salvation by Jesus Christ, of every of their principal officers of state, previous to their admission”.

Pennsylvania did adopt such a requirement in its Constitution in 1776. In fact, a watered down version of it is still in Pennsylvania's constitution (although it is no longer enforced due to a Supreme Court decision). You can read his paper here: "Who Should Be Our Rulers?" 

In the midst of his argument, Duffield argues that the divine authority of Scripture should be recognized by the civil constitution, and he gives sabbath laws as an example of a good fruit of such recognition. He goes on to say, 

The truth of the case is, it is impossible to run a line of distinction between things civil and religious, so as to separate the one from the other, in any civilized State. They are in many respects what God and nature have joined together, and man may not put asunder. The only culpable connection is when, instead of establishing purely the inspired standard, human creeds and compositions are established, and an unequal and equally unjust prerogative or preference is given to any one sect or denomination over or beyond others, or when any pains or penalties are inflicted for religious sentiments, in no wise interfering with the common good and safety of the State.

John Witherspoon

One of the most famous Presbyterian ministers in America in the late 1700s was John Witherspoon. He had moved from Scotland to become the president of Princeton College. He served in the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. I have written more about him here. 

In 1782, he preached a sermon on a day of thanksgiving (he had drafted the proclamation as a member of Congress and he preached on the day as a minister of the gospel). You can read the sermon here, beginning on page 61. Near the end of that sermon, he included an exhortation for those vested with civil authority. “Those who are vested with civil authority, ought also with much care, to promote religion and good morals among all under their government.” He specifies several ways in which they are to do this "further than the impartial support and faithful guardianship of the rights of conscience." First, he teaches that civil rulers are to do this by their own example. Secondly, he goes on to say, 

But I cannot content myself with this. It is certainly the official duty of magistrates to be "a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well." That society will suffer greatly, in which there is no care taken to restrain open vice by exemplary punishment. It is often to be remarked, in some of the corrupt governments of Europe, that whatever strictness may be used, or even impartiality in rendering justice between man and man, yet there is a total and absolute relaxation as to what is chiefly and immediately a contempt of God. Perhaps a small trespass of a poor man on property, shall be punished by a vindictive party, or punished by a tyrannical judge with the utmost severity; when all the laws against swearing, sabbath-breaking, lewdness, drunkenness and riot, shall be a dead letter, and more trampled upon by the judges themselves, than by the people who are to be judged. Those magistrates who would have their authority both respected and useful, should begin at the source, and reform or restrain that impiety towards God, which is the true and proper cause of every disorder among men. O the short-sightedness of human wisdom, to hope to prevent the effect, and yet nourish the cause! Whence come dishonesty and petty thefts? I say, from idleness, sabbath-breaking, and uninstructed families. Whence come deceits of greater multitude, and debts unpaid? From sloth, luxury, and extravagance. Whence come violence, hatred, and strife? From drunkenness, rioting, lewdness, and blasphemy. It is common to say of a dissolute liver, that he does harm to none but himself; than which I think there is not a greater falsehood that ever obtained credit in a deceived world. Drunkards, swearers, profane and lascivious jesters, and the whole tribe of those who do harm to none but themselves, are the pests of society, the corruptors of the youth, and in my opinion, for the risk of infection, thieves and robbers are less dangerous companions.

In his lectures, he similarly addresses "how far the magistrate ought to interfere in matters of religion." He notes the same three things, that the magistrate (1) "ought to encourage piety by his own example, and by endevouring to make it an object of public esteem," (2)  "ought to defend the rights of conscience, and tolerate all in their religious sentiments, that are not injurious to their neighbors" (he refers to Popery as an example of a sect deemed by some to hold tenets subversive of society), and (3) "may enact laws for the punishment of acts of profanity and impiety." He further notes that some argue that "the magistrate ought to make public provision for the worship of God, in such manner as is agreeable to the great body of the society; though, at the same time, all who differ from it are fully tolerated. And, indeed, there seems to be a good deal of reason for it..." (The Works of John Witherspoon, vol. VII, p. 120-121). The idea of public provision for the worship of God was a debatable issue among American Presbyterians, as can be seen by the opposition offered by Hanover Presbytery in Virginia to a bill for the public funding of religion. 

Charles Nisbet

One of John Witherspoon's friends from Scotland was Charles Nisbet. Like Witherspoon, Nisbet had also been a minister in the Church of Scotland before moving to America to become a college president. Nisbet arrived later than Witherspoon, moving to America in 1785 to become the president of Dickinson College, serving there until his death in 1804, lecturing on subjects like moral philosophy, public law, and theology, and preaching at the Presbyterian church in town (Nisbet's lectures were written and are preserved, but it seems that many of them have not been published). Like Witherspoon, Nisbet was one of the members of the synod that made the American revision in 1788 (in the synod's minutes, his name is spelled Nesbit). Around the same time, in a lecture he gave April 10, 1789, Nisbet criticized the US Constitution, which he generally supported, for not providing for the public support of religion (Smylie, "Charles Nisbet: Second Thoughts on a Revolutionary Generation"). He also criticized it for its neglect of God in a letter to Rev. William Marshall (Dec 23, 1799), "In forming our Constitution & even in wording our Oaths, no regard was paid to God, & we can not wonder if he should cast us off in our Distress, & bid us cry to Liberty & equality, the Idols that we have made & served." 

Later Presbyterians like Joshua McIlvaine, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge would seek to remedy this lack of an explicit recognition of God in the US Constitution, participating in the National Reform Association (NRA) and its campaign for a proposed constitutional amendment to that effect in the late 1800s (James Thornwell wrote a paper arguing for a similar amendment to the CSA Constitution). I have taught about these later movements in this lesson: A Christian Nation?. The NRA's proposed amendment was to begin the Constitution with these words,

We, the people of the United States, recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union... 

The Life of William Bradford

William Bradford was the governor of Plymouth for over 30 years and he wrote the most significant history of the colony’s founding, Of Plymouth Plantation. He led the colony with skill and wisdom and he recorded its story for future generations. He was in the best place to write a history, for he had been part of the Pilgrim story from the beginning, and he played a leading part in their lives in the new world. As one biographer has put it, “To [William Bradford], as to most Puritan historians, the writing of history was in the nature of a sacred obligation, for it was the recording of God’s providence as it worked itself out in human affairs” (Perry D. Westbrook, William Bradford). 

Bradford had seen God’s mercy and power at work in the lives of the Pilgrims, as well as in his own life. In some ways, Bradford was an unexpected instrument. He had been weak, despised, and suffering before he came to strength and leadership and prominence. And yet, in these ways, God had providentially prepared him for his calling and blessed the whole colony with a wise and godly magistrate who knew where they came from and where they intended to go. 

Early Life in England

At the end of his life, he wrote a poem about his life. It begins,

From my years young in days of youth,
God did make known to me his truth,
And call'd me from my native place
For to enjoy the means of grace
In wilderness he did me guide,
And in strange lands for me provide.
In fears and wants, through weal and woe,
As pilgrim passed I to and fro…

William Bradford was born in 1590 (1589 O.S.) in Austerfield, Yorkshire, baptized on March 19th. His early years were filled with loss. In 1591, his father died. In 1594 his mother remarried and William was sent to live with his grandfather. In 1596 his grandfather died, and William returned to his mother. In 1597 his mother died and he was sent to be cared for by his uncles, Robert and Thomas. By this point, he was only 7.

William was from a line of yeoman farmers, and his uncles put him to the work of herding sheep. But during this time, William was afflicted by a long sickness. He later saw this as providentially keeping him from the vanities of youth and preparing him for what was to come. It led him to read more, books like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly, and the Geneva Bible.

The reading of Scripture at about 12 years of age made a strong impression on him, and he became known as a Puritan, enjoying the ministry of Richard Clifton, a Puritan minister in the established church a few miles away in Babworth. As Cotton Mather later said of Bradford: “Nor could the wrath of his uncles, nor the scoff of his neighbors, now turned upon him, as one of the Puritans, divert him from his pious inclinations” (Magnalia Christi Americana). Bradford also met William Brewster, of nearby Scrooby, who became a mentor and father figure to him (Brewster was 23 years older than Bradford).

As a teenage, Bradford studied the question of whether it was right to remain in the parish assembly or whether he should join a separatist congregation that practiced God’s ordinances in their purity. He decided that he must separate, and did so, despite the rage of his friends. Perhaps he first joined the separatist congregation in Gainsborough, but then he joined the closer one that formed in Scrooby, formally organized in 1606 with Richard Clifton as its pastor and John Robinson as its teacher (later William Brewster became its ruling elder).

This separatist congregation soon attracted the hostility of the authorities, and so they tried to leave England. Some of them were caught trying to leave in 1607 and imprisoned, including 17-year-old William Bradford. By 1608, he and the others had made it to the Netherlands.

Becoming an Adult in the Netherlands

In Amsterdam, William Bradford learned from and served a Frenchman in the working of silks. The French were rather skilled in the textile industry, and it was Huguenot refugees from France who later brought improvements to this industry to northern Ireland and elsewhere. William Bradford also enjoyed the fellowship and worship of the separatist church and moved in with the Brewster family and stayed with them until he got married in 1613.

After about two years in Amsterdam, the church moved to Leyden to avoid being drawn into conflicts in other separatist congregations. In Leyden, Bradford worked as a fustian-worker (a weaver of a heavy cotton-linen fabric used for men’s clothing). He knew many languages: English, Dutch, French, Latin, and Greek. Later in life, he also learned Hebrew to read the Old Testament in its original language.

In 1611, Bradford turned 21 and was able to receive his inheritance. He converted his estate into money and set himself up in Holland with a house and loom of his own. He also probably helped the church buy a building for a meeting space. In 1613, he married Dorothy May, the daughter of an elder of another separatist church. Their son John was born in 1617.

He and his wife joined the group that set out for the new world in 1620, leaving behind their 3-year-old son in the care of others until it was safer for him to come over.

Governor in Plymouth

When they arrived in the new land, William Bradford signed the Mayflower Compact and went on several expeditions to explore the land. On the first expedition, he was caught by a deer trap and hanged upside down until his friends were able to free him. Tragically, his first wife died by falling overboard while Bradford was away on one of these expeditions.

In that first winter he was struck with a great pain in his hip and collapsed, and it was thought he would not last the night. He was cared for by Captain Standish and Elder Brewster, two of only six or seven who remained well enough to care for the others. While Bradford was sick, the common house where he was staying caught fire, but he and the others in it escaped.

When Governor Carver died in April, the 31-year-old Bradford was unanimously chosen to be the new governor of the colony, even though he had not entirely recovered from his illness. He would be re-elected 31 times to one-year terms, serving as governor every year of his remaining life except for five. As Cotton Mather later remarked, “He had, with a laudable industry, been laying up a treasure of experiences, and he had now occasion to use it: indeed, nothing but an experienced man could have been suitable to the necessities of the people.”  

Marriage and Family

In 1623, William Bradford married a second time. His second wife was a widow with two children named Alice. It appears he had courted her by letter before she arrived, so that they married soon after her arrival. Their wedding was attended by Massasoit, his queen, four other kings, and 120 of his men. These guests also brought three or four bucks and a turkey for the feast. The colonists and Indians feasted together and the Indians danced for their English friends. William and Alice went on to have two sons and a daughter.

His Time as Governor

On aspect of being governor was maintain good foreign relations with the native tribes. Several examples can be produced from just his first year in office. He sent out a party to rescue Squanto from Corbitant, a Wampanoag sachem. He sent another party to establish the fur trade with the Massachusetts. He also made a show of strength when the Narragansetts sent a threatening message of arrows tied in a snakeskin. Bradford sent back powder and balls in that snakeskin with the message: “that if they had rather have warre then peace, they might begine when they would; they had done them no wrong, neither did they fear them, or should they find them unprovided.” He also enforced a policy of only obtaining lands from the Indians by voluntary purchase.

Bradford also had to deal with debt and property. Plymouth colony was originally organized as a joint-stock company. All property belonged to the company and was held in common. The distribution of property and debts had the potential to provoke jealousy in the colony. In 1622, when new comers arrived who did not share the burden of the company, Bradford wisely came up with an arrangement to keep the peace. In 1623, he consented to a division of the land and oversaw its distribution, so that each household could work its own land and simply pay a tax. In 1627, Bradford oversaw the end of the joint-stock company by the settlers purchasing the colony from the London merchants. Each “purchaser” received shares of the debt and a certain amount of land to own. To make repaying the debt easier, a group of 11 men (including Bradford) known as the “undertakers” took on the obligation to pay the colony’s debt and received a monopoly on trade with the Indians. The undertakers were also able to arrange for the transport of the remaining Leyden separatists. It took them 14 years to be free of the debt. Further skill was required for Bradford and his assistants to oversee the distribution of land to more newcomers and eventually to turn this power over from the original purchasers to all the freemen of the colony in 1641.

There were also troublesome men who had to be dealt with. The most serious threat came early on in 1623-1624 with the arrival of two men, the hypocritical minister John Lyford and the hotheaded John Oldham. They pretended friendship, but worked secretly to pit newcomers against the established leadership, and to pit those in England against the separatists in Plymouth. Bradford intercepted their slanderous letters to England and produced copies of them at the right time so that these men were exposed. Oldham had already mistreated Captain Standish, and when the letters were produced, Lyford was silenced while Oldham tried to lead an uprising. They were banished from the colony (they later learned that Lyford had a scandalous past that further exposed his wretched character).

Religion in the colony was another important matter. William Bradford rejoiced to hear of the downfall of the bishops in England during the time of the English Civil War. Yet he was distressed to see a rise in groups that followed errors. Late in life he wrote a poem on this theme, writing against the Familists, Ranters, Seekers, Levelers, Quakers, Anabaptists, Anti-Trinitarians, Arminians, Roman Catholics, and English Bishops, with an appeal to the Presbyterians to join with the Congregationalists in opposing these errors. Some of these groups even made it to his beloved Plymouth colony. While Plymouth colony was rather moderate compared to the other Puritan colonies with respect to church-state relations and in tolerating disagreement, Bradford knew that the governor was called to be a nursing father to the church and was to support and nourish religion. He had learned from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli that both tables of the law were committed to the power of the magistrate, who was to require the people to live well and virtuously. In 1645, a petition was presented to the General Court “To allow and maintaine full and free tolerance of religion to all men that would preserve the Civill peace”. Bradford argued against it and used his position as governor to keep the petition from coming to a vote. In 1655, he threatened to resign as governor unless the General Court took speedy action to “remedy the neglect of competent maintenance for the ministry and the failure to take measures for the suppression of error” (Langdon, Pilgrim Colony, p. 67). A law was passed that ensured a minister’s support by his congregants if they obstinately refused to fulfill their duty. In 1656, at the last General Court that Bradford attended, a Quaker was found guilty of disturbing public worship and of slander and was sentenced to be banished after the winter was over.

His Writings

Bradford had reason to be worried over the religious unity, orthodoxy, and piety of the colony, but not all his efforts were political. He also put pen to paper to leave behind a testimony for future generations.

Between 1630 and 1650, he wrote Of Plymouth Plantation. In this book, he traced the history of the colony from its beginnings in the congregation at Scrooby all the way to 1647, unto the praise of the Lord who had shown his mercy and power. This book remained unpublished, but it was used by other early historians of New England like Bradford’s nephew Nathaniel Morton, who copied portions from Bradford in his book New England’s Memorial. Bradford’s book was kept in Boston, taken by the British in 1776, and was rediscovered in London in 1855.

Bradford also wrote three “dialogues” (1648, 1652) to pass on the vision of the founders to the younger generation, as well as a number of other poems (1650-1657).

His Death

Finally, in 1657, after telling his friends of the comfort he had experienced from the Spirit, he died on May 9th, in the 69th year of his age. His He had done his part and he left the work to future generations.

We have reason to be thankful for what God did through William Bradford. We should also listen to Bradford’s history and exhortation as we press on in our day. 

His will and the inventory of his belongings (including many of his books) at his death can be found here. In his will, he wrote, "In speciall I Commend to you a little booke with a blacke cover wherin there is a word to Plymouth a word to Boston and a word to New England with sundry usefull verses". Here is the word to New England that he mentioned:

A Word to New England, by William Bradford

Oh New England, thou canst not boast;
Thy former glory thou hast lost.
When Hooker, Winthrop, Cotton died,
And many precious ones beside,
Thy beauty then it did decay,
And still doth languish more away.
Love, truth, goodness, mercy and grace—
Wealth and the world have took their place.
Thy open sins none can them hide:
Fraud, drunkenness, whoredom and pride.
The great oppressors slay the poor,
But whimsy errors they kill more.
Yet some thou hast which mourn and weep,
And their garments unspotted keep;
Who seek God's honor to maintain,
That true religion may remain.
These do invite, and sweetly call,
Each to other, and say to all;
Repent, amend, and turn to God,
That we may prevent his sharp rod.
Yet time thou hast; improve it well,
That God's presence may with ye dwell.

 

Pentecostal and Charismatic

The sixth denominational tradition we come to in this series is the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition. The Charismatic movement of the mid-1900s came from the Pentecostal movement of the early 1900s, which in turn had developed from the Holiness movement in the Wesleyan tradition of the late 1800s. Pentecostals usually hold to many Wesleyan distinctives and have their own denominations. Charismatics are a broader and more diverse category and can be found within other denominations and non-denominational churches.

What is most distinctive of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is the belief in and practice of speaking in tongues (or glossolalia) as a current manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In general, Pentecostals will say that all those baptized in the Spirit will speak in tongues (differing among themselves whether this baptism is a first, second, or third work of grace), while Charismatics will say that some who are baptized in the Spirit will speak in tongues. Additionally, both are distinguished by a belief in and practice of gifts of prophecy and healing today. They are generally credo-baptist and premillennial.

A minority of Pentecostals (roughly 10%) are not Trinitarian. They are known as Oneness Pentecostals. One of the largest Oneness Pentecostal denominations is the United Pentecostal Church International (their headquarters is in Weldon Spring, MO and their college and seminary is in Wentzville, MO).

History

Noteworthy figures in this tradition include Charles Parham, William J. Seymour, Aimee Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Chuck Smith, John Hagee, and Paula White.

Charles Parham - He began as a Methodist minister. He opened Bethel Bible College in Topeka and in 1900 he and his students sought the baptism of the Spirit, expecting the gift of tongues as the sign of such baptism. Eventually, one of the students began to “speak in tongues” an hour before the new century after he laid hands on her. The experience spread. The college closed, and he moved around the region, establishing a Bible school in Houston in 1905. His influence declined after he was charged with sodomy in 1907.

William J. Seymour - He began as a student of Parham. He was called to pastor a Nazarene church in Los Angeles, which then rejected his teachings on the baptism of the Spirit (he had taught that those who had not spoken in tongues had not been baptized by the Spirit). As he led a small group that became the Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission, people began to speak in tongues, starting the Azusa Street Revival. It went on continually for three years, attracting many people who went out to spread the teaching and experience to the world.

Church of God - The Church of God denomination was founded gradually from 1886 to 1907 as a holiness church in the Southeast. Instances of speaking in tongues had occurred before the Azusa Street Revival, but it took on greater significance due to the influence of that revival and its teachings, and the Church of God became a Pentecostal denomination headquartered in Cleveland, TN. It has 9.2 million members worldwide and perhaps around 900,000 members in the USA. There are many related denominations with the same name or similar names, like the Church of God (Huntsville), the Church of God in Christ (with predominately African-American membership), and the Church of God of Prophecy.

Assemblies of God - The Assemblies of God was founded in 1914 in Hot Springs, AR by those in the Apostolic Faith Movement, Chicago Pentecostals, and CMA Pentecostals. Its headquarters is in Springfield, MO. Its General Council condemned Oneness Pentecostalism (e.g. UPCI) in 1916. It has a mixture of congregationalist and presbyterian government. Its four core beliefs are Salvation, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (tongues being the sign of it), Divine Healing, and the Second Coming of Christ, and it lists 16 doctrines in its Fundamental Truths.

International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (aka The Foursquare Church) - The Foursquare Church was founded as an evangelical Pentecostal denomination by Aimee Semple McPherson in 1923 in Los Angeles. The term refers to the “foursquare gospel” of Jesus as Savior, Healer, Baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and Soon Coming King. Before its founding, McPherson had been an evangelist in the Assemblies of God. She was a celebrity preacher that used mass media, led a mega church, and conducted faith healing demonstrations.

Oral Roberts - Oral Roberts is an example of a Charismatic televangelist. He promoted Prosperity Gospel theology and “seed-faith” - “planting a seed” by giving in faith, expecting a miracle. He was a minister in the Pentecostal Holiness Church (1936-1968) and then the United Methodist Church (1968-1987), and then independent (1987-2009). He founded Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK. Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and Ted Haggard attended Oral Roberts University.

Charismatic Movement - In the 1960s, Pentecostal ideas arose within existing denominations (e.g. Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, etc) without necessarily causing people to leave them. And rather than equating the baptism of the Spirit to speaking in tongues, speaking in tongues was seen as just one gift of the Spirit.

Calvary Chapel - Calvary Chapel churches began with Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA led by Chuck Smith, which broke away from the Foursquare Church and became the hub of the “Jesus movement” (e.g. the Jesus people). They led the way in rock-style contemporary Christian music. They also emphasized verse by verse expository preaching. They hold to biblical inerrancy and evangelical theology while holding to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second experience, with tongues and prophecy as among the current gifts of the Spirit, to be carefully used. They do not ordain women. Their churches are basically independent and their pastors are not accountable to anyone but God. The Vineyard Movement sprung from a couple Calvary Chapel churches.

What We Have in Common

With many Pentecostals and Charismatics, such as those in the Assemblies of God and Calvary Chapel, we share a belief in the Trinity, Christ, inspiration of Scripture, sin, repentance and faith, and that we are saved by grace through faith on account of the death and resurrection of Christ. Most retain at least a basic practice of baptism and the Lord's supper. We can appreciate their zeal for evangelism and a recognition of the supernatural in a materialistic age.

Where We Differ

Some of these churches are very fringy, even cultish, especially those that emphasize prosperity gospel, faith healing, and unaccountable self-appointed leadership. Some of them simply do not preach the gospel, even if they do not explicitly reject it. Some Pentecostal churches (e.g. UPCI) are not Trinitarian, and are thus not Christian.

Even in the case of the better churches of this tradition, we differ with their distinctives concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the continuing gifts of speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing (although we do recognize God’s providence and his freedom to work with, against, above, and without means). We also differ with prosperity gospel teachings like seed-faith, word of faith, and the like.

Concerning Pentecost

The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2) inaugurated a new era, not a second work of grace in the life of the believer. It was a unique, transitional event. The Spirit was given in a new way, and going forward, this baptism of the Spirit would be received by all believers (1 Cor. 12:13). We are filled with the Spirit in our baptism by the Spirit, and continue to be filled with the Spirit.

The gift of tongues was given to the whole church on Pentecost, but after the initial outpouring, it was given as a gift to some members for the benefit of the church and a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 12, 14). It was the ability to speak foreign languages previously unknown to the speaker, not the free vocalization passed off as tongues speaking today.

The significance of speaking in many languages was that the new covenant church would include all nations. This was a joy to believing Jews, but it was a judgment against those who rejected the gospel (1 Cor. 14, Is. 28:11-12). The gift of tongues ceased after the apostolic age since it marked that period of transition and what it symbolized has been fulfilled. The church was established by the apostles among the nations, so that the church does speak the languages of the nations.

Another reason the gift of tongues has ceased is that the revelation of the gospel given through the apostles and prophets has been delivered to the church and is recorded in Scripture (Eph. 2:19-21, 3:5, Heb. 1:1-2, 2:1-4). Their work was accomplished, and so no additional revelation is given. Since revelation is complete, and speaking in tongues was a form of revelation from God, therefore speaking in tongues has ceased. Also, the “sign gifts” like the gift of healing, which confirmed the word being revealed, also ceased. 

I have written more about Pentecost, tongues, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit here:

Pentecost (Part 1): A New Era

Pentecost (Part 2): Tongues

Pentecost (Part 3): Abiding Effects