WCF Question about the magistrate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Puritan Sailor

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:5a4b2df3e2]II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to [b:5a4b2df3e2]maintain piety[/b:5a4b2df3e2], justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. [/quote:5a4b2df3e2]
What did the divines mean here when they said the civil magistrate must "maintain piety?"

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by puritansailor]
 
That IS interesting. I wonder if it means maintaining piety within the governing officials, or not hindering the church in its work of spreading the gospel. Maybe Mr. Greco can weigh in.
 
I've read the confession commentaries by Shaw and Hodge and both have remained rather vague and breif on that statment. Hodge states the magistrate is to live a godly life and also to rule his people to the glory of God, but he doesn't really define what that means. He states that just as individuals are to live to the glory of God so are communities and nations, but then he doesn't really specify the practical implications of what that looks like. Does anyone know anything about this phrase in the WCF? Matt? Fred? Wayne?
:candle:
 
Patrick,

According to much of the minutes I have been reading, they meant that the Civil Magistrate has the specific duty of maintaining the physical peace in order to lay a foundation of the spiritual peace that church officers conduct in the church. They saw this duty interwoven into the fabric of the Christian life. Thus, they can "wage war" in order to keep the peace. For example, the Civil War with king Charles I would be a perfect example. this was to the end towards Reformation. This is part of the state's duty to God in maintaining piety.

The Erastians (like Dr. Lightfoot) believed that the Civil magistrate actually held the power of excommunication, and not the elders. This was a big debate, but they lost because of exegetical laxity.
 
[quote:f624208d31][i:f624208d31]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f624208d31]
Patrick,

According to much of the minutes I have been reading, they meant that the Civil Magistrate has the specific duty of maintaining the physical peace in order to lay a foundation of the spiritual peace that church officers conduct in the church. They saw this duty interwoven into the fabric of the Christian life. Thus, they can "wage war" in order to keep the peace. For example, the Civil War with king Charles I would be a perfect example. this was to the end towards Reformation. This is part of the state's duty to God in maintaining piety.
[/quote:f624208d31]
So you would say the divines were arguing that it is the responsibility of the state to provide an environment for the church to freely do her job in nurturing piety?

And what about unbelievers? How does the magistrate maintain piety in the unbeliever?
 
Compare this duty of magistrates with those referenced in Chap. XXXI.2 and .4.

Magistrates have a general duty, as ministers of God appointed to civil government under Him, to work together with the Church in an alliance, if you will, to serve the glory of God in their several capacities. Not only are they to keep the peace so that the Church can flourish and fulfill her duties to preach the gospel, etc., but also they may and should uphold, promote, and encourage the Church by the calling of assemblies and the referring of certain matters to ecclesiastical bodies for consideration. A perfect example of this is to be found in the history of the Westminster Assembly itself.
 
Patrick,

I think that there were at least some in the assembly (if not many) that would have disagreed with the current U.S. policy of toleration of all religions. Thus the magistrate would perhaps be within his duty to wage war against Muslims within his realm, for example.
 
[quote:1193a98f57][i:1193a98f57]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:1193a98f57]
Patrick,

I think that there were at least some in the assembly (if not many) that would have disagreed with the current U.S. policy of toleration of all religions. Thus the magistrate would perhaps be within his duty to wage war against Muslims within his realm, for example. [/quote:1193a98f57]
But what would be the justification for that? If a muslim citizen were peaceful and outwardly conforming to the law, why would the magistrate bring the sword against him?
I'm just trying to get a feel for this. This passage remained the same in the WCF American revision despite the complete revision of other sections of this chapter. I'm just trying to understand what they mean by maintaining piety. I can understand justice and peace. But piety? I thought that was the job of the church, not the state?
 
[quote:95872c3d88]
I think that there were at least some in the assembly (if not many) that would have disagreed with the current U.S. policy of toleration of all religions.
[/quote:95872c3d88]

Acutually, the Solemn League and Covenant binds all of them, not some, which would cause them to despise the policies of the US.

The SL&C would not put up with, at all, a toleration of religions. it bound the House of Lord, and the House of Commons for England, Ireland and Scotland to the Reformed desire of Reformation. This woudl have involved the state to accomplish this.
 
[quote:806994e587][i:806994e587]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:806994e587]
[quote:806994e587]
I think that there were at least some in the assembly (if not many) that would have disagreed with the current U.S. policy of toleration of all religions.
[/quote:806994e587]

Acutually, the Solemn League and Covenant binds all of them, not some, which would cause them to despise the policies of the US.
[/quote:806994e587]

SL&C aside most would still despise US toleration out of conviction. I'm sure all the divines would be for severity against non-christian religions, but I believe the debate of the time was whether or not to grant liberty to Christian heretics and sectarians.

Remember the Confession:
WCF XXIII.III [the magistrate] hath authority and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure an entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be supressed all corruptions and abuses in worship be prevented or reformed.
 
[quote:0172f0986e][i:0172f0986e]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:0172f0986e]
[quote:0172f0986e][i:0172f0986e]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:0172f0986e]
Patrick,

I think that there were at least some in the assembly (if not many) that would have disagreed with the current U.S. policy of toleration of all religions. Thus the magistrate would perhaps be within his duty to wage war against Muslims within his realm, for example. [/quote:0172f0986e]
But what would be the justification for that? If a muslim citizen were peaceful and outwardly conforming to the law, why would the magistrate bring the sword against him?
I'm just trying to get a feel for this. This passage remained the same in the WCF American revision despite the complete revision of other sections of this chapter. I'm just trying to understand what they mean by maintaining piety. I can understand justice and peace. But piety? I thought that was the job of the church, not the state? [/quote:0172f0986e]

Depends on if you believe proselitizing (sic?) etc. for another God would be outwardly conforming to the law.

Hermonta
 
Well, I finished a long sermon by Owen on the civil magistrate and a chapter by Kuyper on Calvinism and Politics in his Lecture on Calvinism. Owne still remained vague as to how to apply the principle of a magistrate maintaining piety, just like Hodge and Shaw. Kuyper remained a little clearer but still vague on the application. Kuyper did clarify that the state must remain soveriegn in "her sphere" and accountable to God for how she treats her citizens. He also states that blasphemy against God must be punished but only if it becomes hostile to the state. So I guess for him, you just have to define what hostile means. So any other thoughts from you Confession buffs? I really want to know what the Divines meant. Anyone have any other references? Preferably a contemporary commentary on the Confession?
 
The magistrate may maintain piety by "the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry" (WLC # 108) and by ensuring that citizens do not openly profane the Christian Sabbath, which is a duty required under the Fourth Commandment (see WLC # 118). He may also "lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion" (WCF XXXI.II) (consider the history of the Westminster Assembly itself). And "he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" (WCF # XXIII.III). This is not Erastianism, this is simply godly civil government which is consistent with the Establishment Principle. Also, as Peter mentioned, the Solemn League and Covenant certainly bound the magistrate in the day of the Westminste Assembly to put down all Papist or infidel influences. The state is never religiously neutral; the magistrate is a minister of God and charged with upholding public morality which can only come from true religion, not the tolerance of false religion.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The magistrate may maintain piety by "the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry" (WLC # 108) and by ensuring that citizens do not openly profane the Christian Sabbath, which is a duty required under the Fourth Commandment (see WLC # 118). He may also "lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion" (WCF XXXI.II) (consider the history of the Westminster Assembly itself). And "he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" (WCF # XXIII.III). This is not Erastianism, this is simply godly civil government which is consistent with the Establishment Principle. Also, as Peter mentioned, the Solemn League and Covenant certainly bound the magistrate in the day of the Westminste Assembly to put down all Papist or infidel influences. The state is never religiously neutral; the magistrate is a minister of God and charged with upholding public morality which can only come from true religion, not the tolerance of false religion.
Click to expand...

:ditto: But I think what the divines specifically had in mind when they wrote "maintain piety" were fines and mulcts for not going to church on Sabbath.
 
Also, I should note, the WCF view on the magistrates authority to call synods should be interpreted with the reservation the G.A. of Scotland adopted it with:

"The Assembly understandeth some parts of the second article of the thirty-first chapter only of kirks not settled or constituted in point of Government and that, although in such kirks a Synod of Ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the Magistrate's authority and nomination without any other call, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; and although, likewise, the Ministers of Christ, without delegation from their Churches, may of themselves, and by virtue of their office, meet together synodically in such kirks not yet constituted, yet neither of these ought to be done in kirks constituted and settled."
Click to expand...

[Edited on 16-2-2005 by Peter]
 
You're welcome. Here's something else I picked off the internet by Thomas Mcrie, Scottish Reformation historian:

When the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms were agreed to, the Scottish commissioners took leave of the Westminster Assembly, and, after an absence of about four years, returned to Scotland, and gave an account of their proceedings to the General Assembly which met in August, 1647. This Assembly, of which Mr. Robert Douglas was moderator, is memorable in our history for having received the Westminster Confession of Faith as a part of the uniformity of religion to which the three kingdoms had become bound in the Solemn League.

The only reservation which they made in approving of this Confession, was in regard to the authority of the magistrate in calling assemblies, ascribed to him in the 31st chapter, which they understood "only of churches not settled in point of government;" asserting their freedom "to assemble together synodically, as well pro re nata as at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by the intrinsical power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary for the good of the Church so to assemble." This explanation was necessary, in consequence of the Erastian principles which had now begun to prevail in the English parliament, and to hinder them from settling the discipline of the Church. Whatever construction might be put upon those parts of the Confession by the rulers, the Assembly thus declared the sense in which they "understood" them. This act still remains in force in the Scottish Church, and is prefixed to all our copies of the Confession – a standing memorial of the jealousy with which the Church of Scotland watched over her spiritual independence as a Church of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
RPCI statement of adherence to Westminster Standards also sheds some light upon the proper interpretation of the WCF. Another interesting aside is its position on Chp 24:4

"In particular the Church has reservations regarding two sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. Chapter 23, paragraph 3, and chapter 31, paragraph 2, should be interpreted in accordance with the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland receiving the Confession in 1647. "The Assembly understandeth some parts of the second article of the thirty-first chapter only of kirks not settled or constituted in point of Government and that, although in such kirks a Synod of Ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the Magistrate's authority and nomination without any other call, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; and although, likewise, the Ministers of Christ, without delegation from their Churches, may of themselves, and by virtue of their office, meet together synodically in such kirks not yet constituted, yet neither of these ought to be done in kirks constituted and settled." The Church's acceptance of this interpretation does not imply the granting of any authority to the magistrate other than the requesting of ministers and other fit persons to assemble together.

2. And also regarding chapter 24, paragraph 4, in the matter of marriage with a deceased wife's sister and deceased husband's brother - in view of the uncertainty amongst students of Scripture as to the true interpretation of the injunctions laid down, no disciplinary action is taken by the Church against those who contract such marriages or ministers who perform them."

http://rpc.org/beliefs/testimony/statement.htm
 
What does it mean (constitutionally), I wonder, for the RPCI to have "reservations" about those sections of the Confession? I have their testimony, which I think is much better than the RPCNA testimony, but I am not acquainted with how their testimony works constitutionally.
 
I assume it means, Andrew, that the CoS 1647 and the RPCI believe the WCF to be fully conformable unto the word of God under the condition that the questionable paragraphs are understood in the aforementioned manner.

The RPCI's testimony is considered constitutional however it isnt the parallel WCF/RPs interpretation model as the RPCNA's is, its pretty much just the sum of the faith under several headings with all the RP distinctives. Actually the RPCNA used to be essentially the same until fairly recently, I've an older version of their testimony and it follows that format.

Also its important to note the difference between a reservation and a rejection. The RPCI's testimony only registers that slight reservation, with the Confession the RPCNA, following the backsliding example of other "Americanized" Presbyterian churches, flat out rejects it.

[Edited on 2-16-2005 by Peter]
 
Ok, I'm more familiar with the term "reject" in the RPCNA testimony than the term "reservation." I think I understand better now. Thanks, Peter.
 
Does anyone know if the full text of the General Assembly's act of adoption for the WCF is online?

I found another good article online looking for it, here's an excerpt regarding the topic at hand:

History of the Westminster Assembly, Hetherington
http://www.reformed.org/books/hetherington/west_assembly/chapter_5.html

It may be necessary to mention, that so jealous was the Church of Scotland lest her sanction should be given to any thing which bore an Erastian taint, or might, by perverse ingenuity, be so construed, that in the act of Assembly which ratified the Confession of Faith, an explanation was inserted, giving the Assembly’s understanding of some parts of the second article of the thirty-first chapter, which seemed, or might be interpreted to seem, to grant more power to the civil magistrate in the calling of synods than the Church of Scotland was prepared to admit. And still more completely to guard against the very suspicion of any tincture of Erastianism, the Assembly caused to be printed a series of propositions, or "Theses against Erastianism," as Baillie terms them, amounting to one hundred and eleven, drawn up by George Gillespie, embodying eight of them in the act which authorized their publication. It is impossible to peruse these hundred and eleven propositions without being thoroughly convinced, that the General Assembly never would have ratified the Confession of Faith if they had understood it to contain any such Erastian taint as some in modern times have affected to discover in it. Let the third section of the twenty-third chapter be carefully perused by any intelligent and candid person, in connection with the whole proceedings of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and with the hundred and eleven propositions, and he must conclude that it cannot possibly have an Erastian meaning, even though he should be unable to state what it really does mean; unless, indeed, he were to suppose that the Westminster Assembly and the Church of Scotland did not understand the true meaning of their own propositions. But the truth appears to be, that the learned and able men of that period had so thoroughly studied and mastered the essential elements of the Erastian controversy, that they could state the propositions respecting the duty and power of the civil magistrate circa sacra, about religious matters, without admitting his possession of any duty and power in sacris, in religious matters, in terms which, to their practiced minds, marked the boundaries in sharp and narrow but clear and definite distinctions; while men who have not so deeply studied these subjects, and whose mental acumen has not been so much exercised, cannot trace, and are perpetually crossing, these boundary-lines, more, it may be, from want of perspicacity or knowledge, than in willful perverseness. A full and clear history of the Erastian controversy, stating distinctly the great principles which it involves, and their bearing upon liberty, civil and religious, would be a work of incalculable value at the present time, – that very controversy having again begun to disturb men’s minds, and threatening to shake to pieces the most valuable institutions, if not to overturn the entire structure of society.
Click to expand...

Jus Divinum fully explains the distinction between circa sacra and in sacris. Jus Div was written by contemporaries of the divines of the WA as a vindication of their presbyterianism, arguably by the divines themselves, so this further proves that the reservation the confession was adopted with was the originial intent.

[Edited on 2-16-2005 by Peter]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SolaSaint
  • Locked
Question about the WCF
Replies
2
Views
2K
SolaSaint
SolaSaint
T
  • Locked
Question About WCF 27.3 and 28.6
Replies
6
Views
2K
Andrew P.C.
Andrew P.C.
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
WCF CHAPTER 23 Of the Civil Magistrate
Replies
16
Views
4K
R Harris
R Harris
HokieAirman
  • Locked
Question about WCF Larger Catechism Q. 99
Replies
2
Views
2K
HokieAirman
HokieAirman
crhoades
  • Locked
WCF - Civil Magistrate - original vs. American
Replies
10
Views
2K
Arch2k
A
Back
Top