Baird, Hart, and the King of Kings

King of Kings: A Reformed Guide to Christian Government, by James Baird. Founders Ministries, 2025, xx + 95 pages, $21.98.

As they teach the whole counsel of God, pastors will give instruction from the Bible concerning various relations and callings. As Solomon did in his proverbs, and Peter and Paul did in their letters, so pastors will give instruction from God about marriage, family, work, church, and the commonwealth and its government.

Last year, James Baird, a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, wrote a short book on Christian government, giving special attention to the question of whether civil government ought to promote Christianity. In the May issue of Ordained Servant, Dr. D.G. Hart argued in a review article that “Baird’s argument, no matter how positive and winsome, is wrong.” I contend that Baird’s argument is right and that his book is quite good.

Baird’s main argument is straightforward. “First Premise: Government must promote the public good. Second Premise: As the only true religion, Christianity is part of the public good. Conclusion: Government must promote Christianity as the only true religion” (p. 22). God has ordained the civil authorities for “his own glory, and the public good” (WCF 23.1, cp. Rom. 13:4), and true religion is part of the public good. Romans 1:18-32 describes the bad consequences of turning away from true religion. Those who exchange the truth about God for a lie are given over to dishonorable passions and all manner of unrighteousness. True religion is good for everyone and for every people. Not only does the gospel bring deliverance from condemnation, but it also brings sanctification in Christ, creating a people transformed by the renewal of their minds who are zealous for good works. The influence of true religion extends even to the unregenerate who pick up good ideas, attitudes, and practices from Christians.

Baird reviews fundamental Christian teachings concerning civil government, leading readers through the 23rd chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (the version used by the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church). This includes the statement that magistrates ought especially to “maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth” (WCF 23.2). Magistrates rule for the public good not only by maintaining justice and peace, but also piety. I have written more on this point here. While multiple biblical texts are cited by the confession for this statement (Ps. 82:3-4, Ps. 2:10-12, 2 Sam. 23:3, 1 Tim. 2:2, 1 Peter 2:13), the classic text that brings all three together is 1 Timothy 2:2. There Paul exhorts Christians to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” In other words, the aim of civil government, that we should pray is achieved, is the flourishing of peace, godliness (that is, piety towards God), and honesty (that is, justice among men). 

In the fourth chapter of the book, Baird notes how kings like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah promoted true religion. Recognizing someone might object this was something unique to God’s covenant people, Baird shows this was also true of Gentile rulers when they were at their best. It was good in the eyes of God and good for the people of Nineveh when their king decreed a fast and called his people to repentance (Jonah 3:7-9). It was likewise good when Nebuchadnezzar made a decree against blaspheming the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3:29). When Nebuchadnezzar neglected Daniel’s warnings to repent and proudly boasted of his kingdom, God made him eat grass like an ox. When he was delivered, he publicly honored the true God as the King of heaven (Dan. 4). Baird brings up the decree of Darius (Dan. 6) and the support given to God’s people and worship by Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-3). He also compares these historical examples with the teachings of Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 23:3, and Romans 13:1-7.

Is it the case that Baird “manufactures” such examples by a “sleight of hand,” committing the “anachronism of using ancient, divine-right monarchies as examples for modern republican government,” as Hart claims? Or is Baird showing that the Bible presents this as a thing all civil authorities ought to do? Psalm 2 does not limit its exhortation to ancient, divine-right monarchies. Romans 13 does not say that only kings are God’s servants. Nor does the Westminster Confession limit its statements to one form of government. Ancient monarchies and modern republics are both civil governments with the same basic duties. We should take into account relevant differences, but the differences between them will not so much change the basic duties of government as much as how those duties are fulfilled.

In his review, Hart claims the only political instruction the New Testament church received was “to honor the emperor, a Roman official who sometimes persecuted and killed Christians.” It is true that most New Testament instruction on the civil government has to do with the duty of subjects, given that most Christians then were subjects, not rulers. Yet these instructions were given in such a way that they taught the nature and duty of civil government, reaffirming the lessons found in the Old Testament (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Tim. 2:2, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Rev. 1:5, 21:24). Acts 12 gives vivid instruction about how magistrates ought to promote the honor of God.

In chapter five, Baird reviews how the law of God and prudence play a role in good government and the promotion of true religion. In chapters 6-7, he anticipates the objection that this idea is foreign to the American context, describing how early America continued to see Christianity as essential to the public good and something to be promoted by the civil government in various ways. In the remaining chapters, Baird writes of how it is loving to seek the good of one’s country by promoting good government, how wisdom and prudence is needed in the exercise and reform of government, and how we should pursue this earthly reform with proper perceptive, as citizens of heaven, as exiles like Daniel, seeking the good of the city where we dwell.

More could be said in support of Baird’s argument than is found in this short book. I think his argument could have been further strengthened by a discussion of Christ’s mediatorial kingship. I understand that this omission was a strategic choice on the author’s part to keep the argument focused and brief. A good book on that doctrine is Messiah the Prince by William Symington, a book that was also commended by A.A. Hodge when it was republished in 1881.

So why then does Hart argue that Baird’s argument is wrong? Hart writes that the errors in this book “fall into at least two categories—ones of definition or logic and others of history.” The supposed error of definition or logic is that Baird does not account for demographic changes and “does not adapt his basic category of ‘public good’ to the current circumstances of the United States.” Is this really an error of definition or logic? If a people becomes less Protestant, does this mean true religion is no longer part of the public good? Would true religion cease to be good for that people? The fact that a certain people is religiously diverse does not alter basic principles of civil government. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Baird does write that particular policies for the public good must be adapted to particular situations, but the category of the public good transcends current circumstances. All peoples ought to seek what is good, and true religion does not cease to be good for a people when its demographics change.

What about errors of history? Hart writes that Baird “avoids entirely the reasons that led all the original states to embrace Jefferson’s position and abrogate government support for established churches…” First, the promotion of true religion is not limited to government funding of established churches, nor is that the focus of Baird’s argument. Second, as Miles Smith points out in Religion and Republic: Christian American from the Founding to the Civil War, Jefferson’s position on religion and the state was more extreme than merely opposing church establishment and was not generally embraced during that period. Smith’s book is another good book to read alongside of King of Kings, providing more history of the government’s promotion of Christianity in the American context.

Hart argues that Baird is too abstract and that if he had given attention to the history of, say, Calvin’s relationship to Geneva’s city council, he would have seen how well past Protestant governments have adhered to the ideal model. Should we conclude that since civil rulers do not live up to the ideals espoused by the theologians, that the principles are wrong or our work is in vain? I think such an attention to history shows that, through much work and difficulty, Calvin left Geneva and its government in a better condition than he found it.

Hart also argues that Baird failed to situate American forms for government within the broader sweep of Christian history. Does such a broad sweep of Christian history undermine Baird’s argument? The main lesson Hart draws from this sweep is that political change in a country like the United States is difficult and moving “a nation from its current political configuration back in time to a golden era is impossible.” The problem is that Baird does not advocate a return to a golden age. He argues for a return to a historic doctrine taught in Scripture and its prudent application in the present. He does not say advocating for Christian government will be easy. He warns it will be difficult.

Has history stopped? History shows that America, and the relation of Christianity and civil government in general, is not static. Much has changed in America even within the past eighty years. For example, Sunday laws were in operation within living memory. Could things change again? Also, American government is not entirely separate from religion even today. Our leaders call days of thanksgiving and days of prayer. Our military and legislatures have chaplains. Our national motto is “In God We Trust.” Not only are there things the government could start doing, but there are things it is already doing that could be done better, and which could go the way of Sunday laws if they are not valued and maintained.

Thus, I remain convinced Baird is right. God has appointed civil government, and so the civil authorities, as God’s ministers, ought to honor God (Rom. 13:1-7). Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and so nations and rulers ought to honor and submit to him (Matt. 28:18-20, Ps. 2). Nations and their rulers should countenance and maintain the church of the Lord Jesus (WLC 191), for the nation that will not serve her shall perish (Is. 60:12). Rulers ought to be “nursing fathers” toward the church, and in time they shall be (Is. 49:23, 60:10, 16, WCF 23.3). Since civil magistrates are ordained for God’s glory and the public good (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17), and true religion is part of the public good, therefore magistrates ought to promote true religion. The apostles did not need to teach rulers their duty to promote religion since even the Gentiles understood this duty, but the apostles did need to teach them the true religion. We likewise need to make God’s word known to all, that all might embrace the King of kings and serve him according to their place and calling. We ought to be diligent in prayer for all in authority, that they might rule in a way that promotes the flourishing of piety, justice, and peace in our land.

Those who serve as civil rulers should seek to lead their people in a good direction, praising what is good and suppressing what is evil. But where should nations and their rulers get their ideas of good and evil, of religion and morality? From God. He has made himself and his law known in his creation order, but especially in his word. Christianity reveals true religion and true morality. It reveals the true God and the only way to God and law of God. May Christian principles guide the peoples and their governments, and may peoples and their governments promote Christianity and the reign of the King of kings.

Reformed Christian Politics and Theonomy

Last week, "A Study Report on Reformed Christian Politics" was released by two Presbyterian (PCA) pastors and Dr. Stephen Wolfe. Skimming through the report, it looks generally like a helpful contribution to the conversation on a Reformed approach to politics.

Thus far, the only chapter I have read in full is the chapter on theonomy. While I think that chapter is better than many other critiques of theonomy, and is worth reading on the topic, yet I think it errs when it says that theonomy strays from the Westminster Confession of Faith. What follows are my initial thoughts on that aspect of the report.

I think the report did a better job at exploring and explaining older theologians on the judicial laws of the Old Testament than it did explaining theonomy and theonomists like Greg Bahnsen. I do think there are some weaknesses in Greg Bahnsen's position, but not a difference with 19.4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The report claims that Bahnsen equated the judicial laws and the moral law when he said that Old Testament standing laws are “morally binding” unless modified by revelation. But are not all laws of God morally binding upon those under them? Bahnsen noted that judicial laws can be modified, thus distinguishing them from the moral law.

Contrary to what the report says, Greg Bahnsen, like the Westminster Confession, looked to the general equity contained in the judicial laws as a guiding principle of application. And he recognized there are discontinuities in application due to redemptive historical and cultural differences between Old Testament Israel and us (see his comments in By This Standard (2008), p. 4 and Christ Is King (2025), p. 32-35). 

Did Bahnsen reject the authority of natural law in this interpretive process, as is claimed? While he did not use that terminology, he did assert that the moral obligations given in the law and in nature are the same and have a natural and universal obligation (see "For Whom Was God’s Law Intended?" and Christ Is King, p. 40), and he asserted that it was the moral requirements illustrated in the laws that were to be implemented. He did not reject the “expiration” of the judicial law, nor did he equate the moral and judicial laws. Greg Bahnsen wrote, “Although Israel as a political body has expired -- and along with it its judicial law as a constitution -- the general equity of those judicial laws is still required … Political codes today ought to incorporate the moral requirements which were culturally illustrated in the God-given, judicial laws of Old Testament Israel” ("What Is Theonomy?").

That said, I do think it is true that theonomy may underemphasize the role of natural law in discerning the general equity of the judicial law. Yet the concern the natural law be understood correctly, and not set against the moral law revealed in Scripture, was an important one. 

Also, 19.4 of the Westminster Confession does not simply speak of a "pedagogical function," but of a certain obligation. "To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require." The laws themselves are binding today as far as their general equity may require. The question is, to what extent are the judicial laws of general equity and therefore binding in substance today?

The report recognizes there is variation within the confessional position. I think that theonomy should be regarded as one of these variations, rather than a view that differs from Westminster. In fact, despite statements to the contrary, I think the report helps to show that. That said, I agree that the position can be refined and that the theologians of past centuries can help us in this refinement. 

While I do not give much attention to how Bahnsen's views fit into the mix, you can find my own writings on the judicial laws of the Old Testament here: The Judicial Laws of the Old Testament and here: More on the Judicial Laws of the Old Testament. 

The Nature of Civil Government

"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Peter 2:13–14) 

The apostle Peter exhorts Christians to be subject to civil authorities “…for the Lord’s sake.” The Lord Jesus commands it. Why? As Paul in Romans 13 explains, God has ordained human government. He is the supreme ruler over all, and he has ordained that humanity, in its various commonwealths, be governed by men who will be under him and over the people. Kings and rulers are God’s ministers, governing the peoples of the earth.

Civil government is a natural institution, baked into God’s design for humanity. God created man as a social creature, to join together as mankind multiplied, forming communities. Mankind forms into clans and tribes, cities and nations, each with corporate responsibilities before God and a common life and a common good, requiring common government for good order and leadership. As authority existed in the household before sin, so it would have existed in some form in the community before sin as well.

Civil government now has more duties due to sin. The punishment and suppression of sin is now necessary, and the promotion of good is more pressing. God has authorized the civil authorities to use the sword against man, to exercise even capital punishment and, on just and necessary occasion, to wage war. After the flood, God charged man with the responsibility for avenging innocent blood of his fellow man (Gen. 9:5-6). He did not there first institute civil government, but he assumed and implied it and gave it this task. As this was a corporate responsibility, it was to be carried out by the public authority.

Civil government is a “human institution,” that is, a government among men, and, with respect to its execution and particular form, by men. Civil government varies in form among the peoples of the earth. Nations might be monarchies or they might be governed under a different form of government. Men must be governed, but each community or people may appoint a government that best fits them.

“…sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” Peter mentions this intention as a good and proper thing. This is one more reason to submit to civil government, since it aims at a good thing. While the Roman governors imperfectly fulfilled this charge, this basic function of civil government was correct. God intends civil government to do these things (cp. Rom. 13:1-4, Prov. 16:12-13, 20:26), and even pagan nations understood this.

By stating this, it also implies what civil government ought to do. This is a main duty of the civil magistrate. When a ruler neglects to do these things, or even punishes those who do good or praises those who do evil, they are being faithless to the obligations of their office and are being bad rulers.

These statements, then, not only serve as reasons for you to honor and maintain civil government, but they also give direction to those who participate in politics, whether in office or as citizens. As citizens in our republic, may we seek to promote good government.

To Punish Those Who Do Evil

Evil is that which is corrupt, wrong, destructive. Outward expressions of impiety, immorality, and injustice are evil and are to be punished by the magistrate. God’s law is a guide to human flourishing. So evil things like sorcery, blasphemy, sabbath-breaking, some expressions of false religion, rebellion, murder and unlawful violence (including abortion), adultery and pornography and homosexuality and fornication, theft and fraud and human trafficking, and perjury and slander - things like these are evil and ought to be punished by the civil magistrate. Rulers and legislators should use wisdom how best to do this, in a way that befits their situation. The Bible says that rulers need to be wise (Deut. 1:13). They need to discern how to rule the particular people in front of them. Consider how Moses and Nehemiah took different approaches in different situations for the same ends (e.g. how they enforced the sabbath). Whatever particular measures are taken, the aim is the same, to punish evil and suppress it. 

The magistrate ought to maintain justice when it has been violated, putting things right, enforcing restitution, delivering victims from wrongdoing (Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 82:3-4). Now, some people think that vices that do not directly harm another person should not be punished. But this usually comes from a superficial view of evil. As John Witherspoon said, “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.” Impiety and immorality corrupt people and society, and they give birth to other evil practices that do directly harm one’s fellow man. Rulers should strike close to the root. 

There is so much evil that is not only practiced in our society, but even exalted and celebrated. The civil government cannot convert people by its use of force, but it can suppress and restrain evil for the good of the people, preventing it from leavening the whole society and destroying it. Evil does not stop on its own, but continues to move on to the next corruption unless it is stopped. 

To Praise Those Who Do Good

Good is that which is excellent, right, beneficial. God’s ways are good. Piety, steadfast love, and justice are good. As Micah 6:8 says, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Righteousness is good. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Civil government should seek to praise and encourage justice, faithfulness, courage, and true religion, even as it discourages the opposite.

Note that rulers are both to punish and praise, discourage and encourage, suppress and promote, rectify and reward. They are not only to fix problems, but are also to lead their people to what is good. Those who rule need a positive vision of the public good, taking measures to encourage it.

Preeminent aspects of the public good to be maintained are piety, justice, and peace. In 1 Timothy 2:2, Paul teaches us to pray for “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” That is a positive vision for which rulers ought to aim. In other words, the aim of civil government, that we should pray is achieved, is the flourishing of peace and order in society, of godliness (that is, piety toward God), and of justice (the idea of “dignified” being honesty and uprightness). This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith says that magistrates “ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth” (23.2).

The ultimate purpose of civil government is God’s glory and its immediate purpose and end is the public good - the common good, the good of the people. As Paul says, the magistrate is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4). 2 Samuel 5:12 notes that good king David recognized that “the LORD has established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.” David was unique in that his people was the covenant people of God, but he held an office that existed in other nations, and it was as a good king that he recognized that God had put him there, and that he was exalted for the sake of the people over whom he ruled.

Even pagan governments can promote the public good. Yet not all governments do this equally as well. Some do this better than others. So we value and submit to civil government, even as we also pray and work toward reform according to our place and calling. Christianity is hostile to sin, but it is not hostile to civil government, culture, or nation. These things are rooted in God’s natural order, doing some good even when corrupted, to be restored rather than destroyed.

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.

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 original version of the standards here and the 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 unsound. 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... 

Presbyterians and the American War of Independence

Last Sunday, I preached on how God makes his people a blessing to their land. You can listen to that sermon at this link. "By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown" (Proverbs 11:11). One historical example of this can be found in the work of Christians in the struggles of our own country during its war for independence. Consider the contributions made by our fellow Presbyterians at that time. 

In 1768, John Witherspoon accepted an invitation to become the president of the College of New Jersey. He was a Presbyterian pastor from Scotland who had become notable as a leader of the evangelical party in the Church of Scotland against the moderates. At the College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton University), he taught 500 students, including 

a president of the United States (James Madison), a vice president (Aaron Burr Jr.), twelve members of the Continental Congress, five delegates to the Constitutional Convention, forty-nine US representatives, twenty-eight senators, and three Supreme Court justices. Added to this impressive list were 114 ministers of the gospel, 19 of whom became presidents of institutions of higher learning. (Reformed and Evangelical across Four Centuries: The Presbyterian Story in America) 

Around the same time, British policy toward their colonies began to change. The British Parliament began claiming authority to tax and regulate the internal affairs of the colonies, an authority which the colonies argued was illegitimate and which belonged to their own representative legislatures. Parliament only had authority to regulate external trade for the advantage of the mother country, not to raise revenue. They rightly saw this imposition a usurpation and one that undermined their rights as British freemen and the security of their hard-won property.

Another threat was that the British Parliament might attempt to impose a bishop on the colonies aligned with the power of the state, a tyranny from which the colonists had escaped by coming to America. Congregationalists and Presbyterians were united in their concern for religious liberty and were concerned with good reason that the suppression of civil liberty might lead to the suppression of religious liberty. Historically, they knew how kings had used bishops to gain greater control over the church and feared that such a bishop might be empowered with authority over dissenters. In 1766, the Presbyterian Church (the Synod of New York and Philadelphia) and the Consociated Churches of Connecticut formed an association with a regular convention for better communication between them and for a united stand for the gospel and religious liberty and against the imposition of a bishop.

The Presbyterian synod rejoiced with the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 and reminded its people to give thanks to God for delivering them both from the French and Indians and from the Stamp Act and to respond with renewed obedience to God, rather than risk his judgment by ingratitude. In all the coming trials of the war, pastors would remind the people to look beyond the British to the hand of Providence and to humble themselves before the Lord in prayer and repentance.

As war approached, Presbyterian pastors were careful to be pastors not politicians. Preaching on politics directly was more the exception than the rule, and was done most often on special days of fasting or thanksgiving. But centuries of Reformed teaching on the magistrate and proper ways of resistance had a strong influence on the colonies, and pastors did not ignore the events of their time. They approved the struggle for American rights and liberties and gave pastoral exhortations for how to pursue this course in a godly way. 

The Synod sent out a pastoral letter of 1775 drafted by John Witherspoon to this effect. In it, they advised those under their charge to humble themselves before God, to express their attachment and respect to their Sovereign (but misled) King George and to the Revolution principles by which his august family was seated on the British throne (referring to the Revolution of 1688); to seek only the preservation of those rights which belonged to them as freemen and Britons and to desire reconciliation on those terms; to honor, pray for, and observe the resolutions of the Continental Congress; to maintain church government over the morals of members; to each fulfill his debts and duties to his neighbors amid disorder and disruptions; to preserve a spirit of humanity, only fighting as necessary; and to continue steadfastly in prayer. The letter was signed on May 22, 1775 and it was read from the pulpit in the churches on a national fast day, July 20, 1775, a year before independence was declared. John Adams sent a copy of this letter to his wife and was very pleased with it and with the Presbyterian preaching he attended in Philadelphia from Rev. George Duffield, a future chaplain to the Continental Congress. You can read the pastoral letter online here in a collection of John Witherspoon's works. 

On May 17th, 1776, a day of prayer and fasting declared by Congress, John Witherspoon preached “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men.” In this sermon he preached on God’s providence and a right use of it and the importance of virtue. In it, he declared his opinion “that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature.” He concluded his sermon by saying, 

Upon the whole, I beseech you to make a wise improvement of the present threatening aspect of public affairs, and to remember that your duty to God, to your country, to your families, and to yourselves, is the same. True religion is nothing else but an inward temper and outward conduct suited to your state and circumstances in providence at any time. And as peace with God and conformity to him, adds to the sweetness of created comforts while we possess them, so in times of difficulty and trial, it is in the man of piety and inward principle that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. — God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.

Only two months later, the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. Rev. Witherspoon and 11 Presbyterian laymen were among its signers. Speaking of Witherspoon, a member of Parliament said, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” 

One of those other Presbyterian signers was Thomas McKean. He was a Scots-Irish Presbyterian, born in Pennsylvania to parents born in Ireland, and educated by Rev. Francis Alison (an Old-Side Presbyterian minister) and at the University of Pennsylvania. He represented Delaware in the Stamp Act Congress and in the Continental Congress (1774-1782). He voted for and signed the Declaration of Independence, served as a colonel in the war, helped draft the Articles of Confederation and voted for them. He served in the Delaware House of Assembly and drafted Delaware's 1776 Constitution.  He was the chief justice of Pennsylvania from 1777 to 1799, a member of Pennsylvania’s convention who voted to ratify the US Constitution, and the governor of Pennsylvania from 1800 to 1808. Even at the age of 80, he was active during the War of 1812 in leading a Philadelphia citizens group to prepare for a potential British invasion. 

In fact, due to the strong support Presbyterians gave to the patriot cause, the war became known among many of the British as a Presbyterian war, especially since the Congregationalists were so closely united with the Presbyterians as to be grouped together with them. In fact, some Tories believed the war was caused by a Presbyterian-Congregationalist conspiracy to set up a Presbyterian establishment in the colonies - a rumor that Presbyterians would go out of their way to disprove. One loyalist Anglican minister, Rev. William Jones, wrote in 1776 to the British government that “…this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning as certainly as that in 1641…” (referring to the British Civil War). 

While Presbyterians of various ethnic background largely sided with the patriots, the Scots-Irish were especially numerous and prominent. They sided with the patriots quite earnestly, except for a few areas where local disputes divided them. They were some of the most loyal troops that stuck by Washington at Valley Forge. Their Presbyterian ancestors had opposed tyranny under the authority of lower magistrates and legislatures in the British Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and now they did it again. One Hessian captain wrote to a friend, saying, “call this war, dearest friend, by whatsoever name you may, only call it not an American Revolution, it is nothing more nor less than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion” (Capt. Johann Heinrichs, January 18, 1778). This also meant that Presbyterians and their ministers and churches were often targeted by the British Army. For example, Rev. James Caldwell was a chaplain in the Continental Army and his wife was killed by the British, his house and church was burned by Tories, and his death was probably an assassination.

As the war shifted to the south, the Scots-Irish Presbyterians of the backcountry would provide important victories at King’s Mountain and Cowpens. At King’s Mountain, these Scots-Irish frontiersmen had been encouraged by the preaching of Presbyterian preacher Samuel Doak and were led by five colonels who were also Presbyterian elders. General Daniel Morgan who defeated Tarleton at Cowpens came to faith during the war and joined the Presbyterian church shortly after the battle. 

Not only did they fight, but Presbyterians also emphasized the importance of rightly responding to trials and humbling themselves before God in prayer and repentance. Both Congress and the Synod repeatedly set days to call people to repentance, prayer, thanksgiving, and new obedience throughout the war. Presbyterians looked to God to deliver and use this new country for good, but they also realized the need for national repentance and reformation if this was to happen, and preached for it. In 1779 and 1780, the Presbyterian church called for a day of prayer and fasting in this way: 

The Synod taking into consideration the great and increasing decay of vital piety, the degeneracy of manners, want of public spirit, and prevalence of vice and immorality that obtains throughout our land, and that the righteous God, by continuing still to afflict us with the sore calamity of a cruel and barbarous war, is loudly calling the inhabitants to repentance and reformation, and as a means thereto, to deep humiliation, frequent and fervent prayer, do therefore appoint Thursday, the 17th day of August next, to be observed by all under our care, as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; and do also renew the recommendation of former Synods to all their congregations, to spend a part of the last Thursday in every month, in social prayer, as their circumstances may admit.

The Presbyterian church also responded to victory with calls for thanksgiving. In 1783, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia sent out another pastoral letter to its churches, writing, 

We cannot help congratulating you on the general and almost universal attachment of the Presbyterian body, to the cause of liberty and the rights of mankind. This has been visible in their conduct, and has been confessed by the complaints and resentment of the common enemy. Such a circumstance ought not only to afford us satisfaction on the review, as bringing credit to the body in general, but to increase our gratitude to God for the happy issue of the war. Had it been unsuccessful, we must have drunk deeply of the cup of suffering. Our burnt and wasted churches, and our plundered dwellings, in such places as fell under the power of our adversaries, are but an earnest of what we must have suffered, had they finally prevailed.

The synod, therefore, request you to render thanks to Almighty God, for all his mercies spiritual and temporal; and in a particular manner for establishing the independence of the United States of America. He is the supreme disposer, and to Him belong the glory, the victory, and the majesty.

Presbyterian Statements on Women and the Draft

Since it is in the news again that the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces is proposing (once again) to start requiring women to register for the draft in the 2025 NDAA (see here), I thought I would share a few statements from Presbyterian denominations in NAPARC on women and the draft/military. This is not comprehensive, as other denominations have made similar statements. My local church also has its own statement on this in its constitution. Hopefully this provision is taken out of the final bill, and perhaps these statements might be worth including in a letter to your senator or representative. I believe the requirement for women to register for the draft to be both unwise and immoral on account of the distinction between the sexes revealed in creation and in the Bible. In the Bible, men alone are assigned the responsibility for national defense (Neh. 4:14, Num. 1:2-3, Deut. 24:5), and this was not something pertaining to ancient Israel alone, but a moral principle based in the creation order (Gen. 1:27, Is. 19:16, Jer. 51:30). 

Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 68th General Assembly, 2001:

“The 68th GA declares that the use of women in military combat is both contrary to nature and inconsistent with the Word of God.”

Presbyterian Church in America, 30th General Assembly, 2002:

"1. Acknowledging that the child in the womb is 'a person covered by Divine protection' (Statement on Abortion, Sixth General Assembly); and that women of childbearing age often carry unborn children while remaining unaware of their child's existence; and that principles of just war require the minimization of the loss of life-particularly innocent civilians; the PCA declares that any policy which intentionally places in harms way as military combatants women who are, or might be, carrying a child in their womb, is a violation of God's Moral Law. Adopted

"2. This Assembly declares it to be the biblical duty of man to defend woman and therefore condemns the use of women as military combatants, as well as any conscription of women into the Armed Services of the United States. Adopted

"3. Therefore be it resolved that the Thirtieth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America adopts the above as pastoral counsel for the good of the members, the officers, and especially the military chaplains of the Presbyterian Church in America. Adopted

"4. Be it further resolved that the Presbyterian Church in America supports the decision of any of its members to object to, as a matter of conscience, the conscription of women or the use of women as military combatants. Adopted"

Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, 168th Synod, 1998:

“Therefore, be it now resolved: That, while recognizing the right and duty that women have to self-defense, which may involve physical violence (Judges 9:53), it is our conviction that Biblical teaching does not give warrant to employ women for military combat.”

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod, 2016, Index 20:

“The Word of God gives no warrant expressed or implied that women are to be conscripted into military service or required to participate in military combat. Therefore, the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church opposes the registration of women for Selective Service and the assignment of women to combat duty or to duties which involve a significant risk of engaging in combat.”

Many of these quotes are also found in Paul Barth's post on the topic: Women in the Military and in Combat. The PCA and OPC's statements can be found along with the committee reports that preceded their adoption here (PCA) and here (OPC), although I would note it is the statements rather than the reports that were adopted by the general assemblies. You can also find my earlier post about the 7th century "Law of Adamnan" on this topic here.

A Christian Nation? - American Presbyterians (1850-1950)

In preparing for a lesson in my series on American Presbyterian history, "A Christian Nation?," I thought I would share a few resources from four Presbyterian seminary professors between 1850 and 1950 on the relation of Christianity to civil government and society. Nearly all these resources are available online (click on the links to find the resources), thanks to the Log College Press and Westminster Media.

Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary

“The Sabbath Laws” in his Systematic Theology, vol. III (1873), pages 340-348

“Province of the Church” (1859), in Discussions in Church Polity, pages 100-106. 

James H. Thornwell of Columbia Theological Seminary

“Relation of the State to Christ” (1861)

A.A. Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary

“The Kingly Office of Christ,” “The Kingdom of Christ,” and “The Law of the Kingdom” in Popular Lectures on Theological Themes (1887), currently published by Banner of Truth as Evangelical Theology. I have posted quotes from these before, here, here, and here. 

John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary

“The Christian World Order” (1943)

“The Church – Its Identity, Function, and Resources" (not available online in full, but see quoted paragraph here)

The Judicial Laws of the Old Testament

How should we use the judicial laws of the Old Testament? What relevance do they have today? The Westminster Confession of Faith contains an excellent, brief paragraph on this question after discussing the moral law and the ceremonial laws given to Israel. 

“To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” (WCF 19.4)

Nevertheless, there is still a bit of debate among confessional Presbyterians on the topic, especially with regard to how compatible it is or not with "theonomy." Part of the problem is that there is some diversity among modern theonomists, with some theonomists being more confessional than others. Part of the problem is that the opponents of theonomy sometimes misunderstand theonomy or attack a straw man version. Additionally, part of the problem is that the confession's own statement is not always well understood.

For example, I have heard some people explain the confession's statement by saying that today the judicial laws only have relevance for the church, as the new covenant Israel. But the focus of the confession's "general equity" clause clearly refers to its obligation on states. While Paul does apply judicial laws to the church, this does not mean they no longer apply in some sense to the political sphere.

Nor does it do justice to the confessional position to say that equity (i.e. justice or fairness) has replaced the judicial laws in civil affairs. Rather, the confession teaches that the judicial laws themselves are binding to an extent defined by their connection with general equity.

What does the confession mean by "general equity"? We can start by describing general equity as a quality that some of the judicial laws have. To the extent that they have it, they are universally binding on that basis. The judicial laws are not binding on modern states further than their general equity may require. I hope the following discussion will help explain this concept. 

It is important to note that the reason given in the confession for the expiration of the judicial laws is the expiration of the state of Israel. We cannot go back to the original context of ancient Israel. The reason that these laws have expired is because the original context no longer exists. Thus, to apply these laws today, a person must discern what was grounded in the unique position of ancient Israel and what was grounded in the moral law.

Incidentally, I believe that most theonomists who seek to be confessional are in agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith. You can see how Greg Bahnsen argued for theonomy's compatibility with confessional and historical Reformed theology in this extended article. Modern-day theonomists would do well to follow his example by drawing from the work done in prior centuries. I do not think Dr. Bahnsen is the final word on the subject. I believe his position can be refined and improved by continued attention to the judicial laws themselves and the work of earlier Reformed writers concerning the application of God's law to society. But I do think his work is quite helpful in critiquing antinomianism, affirming the relevance of God's law to all of life, and calling attention to a certain applicability of the judicial laws.

The Judicial Laws, the 39 Articles, and the Westminster Confession

The Westminster Assembly (1643-1652) addressed the judicial laws of the Old Testament in 19.4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. To understand its statement, it is helpful to compare it to what the 39 Articles had said previously. The 39 Articles had served as the confession of faith for the Church of England since 1571. In its chapter on the Old Testament, the 39 Articles said, 

“Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth…”

In their initial revision of the 39 Articles (available in The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 5:326), the Westminster Assembly specified which judicial laws are no longer binding on nations: 

“Although the Law Given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christians, nor the civill precepts given by Moses, such as were peculiarly fitted to the commonwealth of the Jews, are of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth...” (emphasis added)

This helps us understand the distinction made in it the final product of the assembly. In its confession of faith, the Westminster Assembly made the same distinction in a different way, specifying which laws continue to be binding rather than specifying which ones do not. 

“To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” (WCF 19.4)

This is to say that the judicial laws of the Old Testament are binding on states today as far as they are of general equity, not peculiarly fitted to Israel, a distinction that was commonly made at the time.

For example, Johannes Piscator’s appendix to his commentary on Exodus was quoted favorably in the writings of men at the Westminster Assembly (George Gillespie, Francis Cheynell, and Samuel Rutherford). In that appendix, Johannes Piscator (1546—1625) argued that

“the magistrate is obliged to those judicial laws which teach concerning matters which are immutable and universally applicable to all nations, but not to those which teach concerning matters which are mutable and peculiar to the Jewish or Israelite nations for the times when those governments remained in existence.” (Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses, Braselton, GA: American Vision, 2015 [1605], 4-5)

While a member of the Westminster Assembly, Samuel Bolton published The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (1645). In this book, he said “in respect of the ceremonial and the judicial law we find few dissenters.” Here is how he explained this common view of the judicial law:

“As for the judicial law, which was an appendix to the second table, it was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil, and it served three purposes: it gave the people a rule of common and public equity, it distinguished them from other peoples, and it gave them a type of the government of Christ. That part of the judicial law which was typical of Christ's government has ceased, but that part which is of common and general equity remains still in force. It is a common maxim: those judgements which are common and natural are moral and perpetual.” (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1964 [1645], 56)

This concept and terminology was also found at this time on the other side of the Atlantic. Thomas Shepherd, minister in Massachusetts, cited and affirmed Piscator’s view in thesis 42 of his Theses Sabbaticæ, or, The doctrine of the Sabbath, saying “The learned generally doubt not to affirme, that Moses judicials binde all nations, so farre forth as they containe any morall equity in them...” The New Haven Colony affirmed in 1642,

“that the judicial law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as it is a hedge and a fence to the moral law, and neither ceremonial nor typical nor had any reference to Canaan, hath an everlasting equity in it, and should be the rule of their proceedings.” (Charles Hoadly, ed. Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven from 1638 to 1649, Hartford: for the Editor, 1857, 69)

Two Kinds of Judicial Laws in the Old Testament

So regarding the judicial laws, Reformed theologians have distinguished between laws peculiarly fitted to Israel and laws on things common to all nations. They taught that the first category, while instructive in various ways, is not binding on the nations, but that the second category, resting on general equity, does bind them. While there is some room for debate on what was peculiarly fitted to the commonwealth of Israel, here are a few examples of how 16th-17th century Reformed theologians described this distinction.

Johannes Piscator, Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses (2015 [1605]):

“Things common to all nations (that is, which befall all) and are immutable with respect to their own nature and merits are moral offenses, that is, against the Decalogue, such as murder, adultery, theft, seduction from the true God, blasphemy, and smiting of parents.

“Those laws which are mutable and which were peculiar to the Jews for that time are things such as the emancipation of Hebrew slaves in the seventh year, Levirate marriage, releasing of debts in the appointed year, marriage with a woman from one’s own tribe, and if there were any other of the same sort.”

Henrici Alting, Scriptorum theologicorum Heidelbergensium (1646):

“For whatever was a particular proper right, such as peculiarly concerned the Jews, of which sort was the law concerning the office of the Levites, as another concerning inheritances not being transferred from one tribe to another, all of this kind have ceased. But insofar as it concerned common right, enacted according to the law of nature for all men together, of which sort are the laws concerning the punishments for crimes, these same judicial laws all remain.”

William Gouge, A commentary on the whole Epistle to the Hebrews (1655):

“Many branches of that law appertained to the Jewish priesthood; as, the particular laws about the cities of refuge, whither such as slew any unawares fled, and there abode till the death of the high priest. Num. xxxv. 25. And laws about lepers, which the priest was to judge. Lev. xiv. 3. And sundry other cases which the priest was to judge of, Deut. xvii. 9. So also the laws of distinguishing tribes. Num. xxxvi. 7 ; of reserving inheritances to special tribes and families, of selling them to the next of kin, Ruth iv. 4 ; of raising seed to a brother that died without issue. Gen. xxxviii. 8, 9 ; of all manner of freedoms at the year of jubilee, Lev. XXV. 13, &c.

“There were other branches of the judicial law which rested upon common equity and were means of keeping the moral law: as putting to death idolaters and such as enticed others thereunto; and witches, and wilful murderers, and other notorious malefactors. So likewise laws against incest and incestuous marriages; laws of reverencing and obeying superiors and governors; and of dealing justly in borrowing, restoring, buying, selling, and all manner of contracts, Exod. xxii. 20 ; Deut. xiii. 9; Exod. xx. 18 ; Num. xxxv. 30; Lev. xx. 11, &c., xix. 32, 35.”

Applying the Judicial Laws with Wisdom

Like any nation, Israel needed a law to guide the state in its normal role in administrating justice. It is right after Moses appoints judges for Israel in Exodus 18 that Israel is given judicial laws in Exodus 21-23. These judges were not prophets like Moses. They needed God's word to direct them in their task. God gave Israel laws, which if they were observed, would make that nation a model of justice and righteousness (Deut. 4:5-8). As Moses said, "And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" (Deut. 4:8). In this respect, their God-given laws were a model to all the nations. As they pertain to matters which are immutable and universally applicable to all nations and rest upon general equity, they remain in force. But it should also be noted that there are two sources of discontinuity in modern application:

First, there are redemptive-historical differences between Israel and modern nations. Israel held a unique position as the entire covenant people and the kingdom of God with typological significance. Its land held special significance as the promised land. Judicial laws that depended upon the Levitical priesthood cannot be replicated as they were originally instituted. The test for adultery in Numbers 5 is only designed for the old covenant system. Other examples include laws regarding tribal inheritance, the sabbath year and year of jubilee, the particular regulations for the cities of refuge, and the laws regarding the inheritance of the Levites. Other laws might be a mix, partly reflecting Israel's unique position and modified or intensified accordingly.

Even the laws adapted to Israel's unique position are still instructive, even though they are abrogated. For example, the laws regarding the inheritance of the Levites teach the principle that they who proclaim God’s word should be maintained (1 Cor. 9:13-14). The laws regarding the cities of refuge teach us to distinguish between murder and manslaughter as well as to seek due process and adjudication.

Second, there are other situational differences such as technological differences, cultural contexts, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Even in the Old Testament, wisdom was needed how to apply case laws to particular situations as new situations arose or old situations changed. For example, consider the culturally specific setting of the parapet law (Deut. 22:8). It assumes the use of the roof as a living space, but the principle continues to apply even when the precise application becomes obsolete. When Paul concluded from the law against muzzling the ox while it tread out the grain the principle that the laborer deserves his wages (1 Cor. 9:8-10, 1 Tim. 5:18), there was nothing unique to the new covenant about this observation - those under the old covenant should have made the same deduction. Even in the Old Testament, some cases required a determination on the part of the judge how many lashes were to be given in proportion to an offense up to forty (Deut. 25:1-3, cp. Luke 12:47-48). A ransom payment was sometimes accepted instead of the death penalty, although not in the case of murder (Ex. 21:30-32, Num. 35:31-32). Ezekiel 18 and 1 Kings 1-2 seem to indicate that mercy could be shown in some cases toward the repentant, though not toward the incorrigible. I think that some people who object to any binding relevance of the judicial laws today operate on a misunderstanding of what the judicial laws required of Israel and would require of us.

Rulers of every commonwealth have a God-given responsibility to carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer; to maintain piety, justice, and peace in their realm; to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good (Rom. 13:4, 1 Peter 2:13-14, 2 Tim. 2:2, WCF 23.1-2). The civil government has some flexibility to make laws fitting for its situation and to apply them justly as fits the situation, but it is obligated to make such laws in accordance with the moral law of God and with the judicial laws given by him, insofar as they are of general equity. That is, modern states should maintain justice in accord with God’s moral law, and they should model their laws after the judicial laws of of the Old Testament as an infallible example of God’s moral law applied in a given society, with appropriate adaptation to their circumstances.

And while only the civil magistrate has the power of the sword, all of society should find direction in the judicial laws, since they teach the application of the moral law to life. Business, families, and individuals should learn from them to be honest, just, and righteous. You should study these laws, heed their principles, and walk accordingly. Observe God’s displeasure with those sins in the prescribed punishments. And remember that as civil laws, they often express a minimal standard (e.g. do not kill your neighbor), not the full ideal (e.g. love your neighbor as yourself). Likewise, remember they often teach principles through case laws that give direction for what to do in a given case - as if the case already exists and is bring brought before a judge to adjudicate - and so the law does not necessarily approve or permit everything in the situation (e.g. when it gives directions for dividing an inheritance in a polygamous family, it is not approving of polygamy).

The church must also wisely apply God’s law, including the judicial laws, in line with what we have said. It applies them in its own way, with spiritual discipline, not civil punishments. But like Israel of old, the church is told to “purge the evil person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:13). Like Israel of old, the church is told to establish every charge “by the evidence of two or three witnesses” (Matt. 18:16). The church should also proclaim the substance of typical ordinances, for example, proclaiming the spiritual jubilee in Christ.