Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Food Rationing in Socialist Venezuela Leads to Mob Fighting Over Milk | FrontPage Magazine



Venezuela’s powdered milk crisis has a long wacky history full of price control problems. Chavez and his even loonier successor Maduro have tried to set price controls for powdered milk.
Unfortunately neighboring Columbia would love to buy all of Venezuela’s powdered milk at real market prices leading Chavez to denounce dairy companies that sell milk abroad as “traitors”.
Maduro launched raids against “milk hoarders” confiscating milk for the people leading to absurd mob scenes like these with only one can to a person. (Anything else would be hoarding.)
Here’s an account of what it’s like to try and buy milk in Venezuela. Any resemblance to the Soviet Union is not accidental.
Welcome to Socialism. If you like your powdered milk, get ready to take one can of it home. If you can find.



CLICK BELOW

Food Rationing in Socialist Venezuela Leads to Mob Fighting Over Milk | FrontPage Magazine

CRIME, POVERTY AND EBT


By Daniel Greenfield

When the police stoppedLuvina Mobley Smith, they found a pound of pot in her car and five EBT food stamp cards which drug dealers often take in payment for drugs. It would have been an ordinary enough story except that Smith, despite being a convicted felon, was also the Deputy Clerk of Alorton.
Luvina is the daughter of Callie Mobley, Alorton’s former mayor, who had collected double her salary and served time in jail for income tax evasion. Mayor Mobley, who had been the mayor of Alorton for two decades, had been doing the same thing back to her days as liquor commissioner.
St. Clair County State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly warned, “Alorton City Hall is becoming a criminal narco state at the expense of the citizens of Alorton.”
Alorton, an African-American village run by Democrats, may actually be the most corrupt village in Illinois and the United States.
Alorton’s violent crime rate has been as high as ten times the national average.  Its biggest employers are health care, fast food, welfare and education.  The unemployment rate for black men is at 31%.  Half the people in Alorton live below the poverty line. 70% of poor households consist of single mothers.
The village has the fourth highest poverty rate of any place in Illinois. Its corruption and misery are examples of what happens when the Democratic Party’s power goes unchallenged.
Mayor Randy “Rambo” McCallum Sr. came into office telling cops, “I run this mother___” and ordered them to rob competing drug dealers and split the money with him. When drug dealers were busted, the seized drugs and money were brought to his house where he pocketed the money and resold the drugs.
McCallum Sr. stole so much money that there were no bank deposits for a year.  When an undercover informant went to his house, he found crack cocaine on the kitchen table being prepped for sale.
Alorton’s police chief, Michael Baxton Sr., set up surveillance cameras in the police station that he could monitor from home to alert Mayor McCallum when the seized drugs and money were coming in.
The police chief went down for stealing Xbox video games from the trunk of a stolen car telling another cop, “This ain’t (expletive), I’m gonna put you on some real (expletive), teach you how to be real police.”
Baxton Sr. had already beendecertified for earlier felony convictions for theft and burglary and should not have even been serving as police chief.
His son Michael Baxton Jr. remained on the Alorton police force where he was hit with three Federal lawsuits for physically abusing people. He briefly became the police chief of East St. Louis until two black board memberswon a lawsuit because after they were harassed for supporting a more qualified white candidate for the job.
Baxton Sr. had replaced Alorton’s former police chief, Robert L. Cummings, who had been locked up for income tax fraud that included paying the parents of eight children to let him claim tax deductions for their offspring. His brother, Streets Superintendent Ronnie Cummings, who had a previous  conviction for selling cocaine, was locked away for attempting to obtain a high capacity gun that he planned to fire through a bag to catch spent casings.
Corey Allen, Alorton’s interim police chief who replaced Baxton, later went on to be indicted for selling a gun to a sex offender who was running from police at the time. While waiting to go to prison, he beat and choked a woman who told his girlfriend that she was his mistress. In between his duties as assistant police chief in Centerville and his criminal activities, he also owned a car wash and played the sax under the name “Sax-Mo.”
Like Luvina, Mayor McCallum’s son, Randy McCallum Jr. followed the family tradition and was charged with a double murder committed while he was under electronic monitoring for yet another crime. Even though one of the murdered men placed a recorded 911 call naming McCallum Jr. as the killer, the trial ended in a hung jury because a holdout juror was facing a battery charge for attacking the killer’s cousin.
Other jurors identified her from her mugshot.
Meanwhile during the time that McCallum Jr. was in prison and his father was still the police chief, McCallum Sr. admitted smuggling marijuana cigarettes to his son.
Determined not to let Alorton’s police department hog all the glory, fire chief Carlos Darough’s car was searched after he ran a stop sign. Inside the car were pot, crack cocaine and a scale. When cops showed up at his house, Carlos’ wife Lanella was caught trying to dispose of more drugs. At another of his homes where undercover police had bought drugs, they found more cocaine and a whole lot of guns.
Carlos had already been on probation after serving eight years in prison for a cocaine conviction.  He had been with the Alorton fire department since he was 14 and had been repeatedly arrested over two decades on a variety of charges ranging from drugs to domestic violence.
Alorton’s Public Safety Director, Harry “Dink” Halter, a former police officer and tow truck operator, who had already been arrested for forcing a female driver to perform a sexual act on him and gotten away without being forced to register as a sex offender, was charged with wire fraud and tax evasion for, among other things, taking a grant that Mayor McCallum Sr. gave him to put a fence around his tow yard, kicking back $800 to the mayor and using the rest to pay for his boating expenses.
Mayor JoAnn Reed, Alorton’s current mayor, faced her own set of chargesbefore the election for smuggling a cell phone into jail after her niece had attacked a pregnant woman. The niece posted “I’m in jail but auntie snuck me my phone don’t tell no 1″ on Facebook.
Despite these charges, Reed won the election.
Reed, a former records clerk in an Illinois sheriff’s office, was not exactly a criminal mastermind. Back in 2004, she had been arrested for threatening the son of Mayor Randy McCallum with a flashlight that she pretended was a gun.  During her time as a records clerk she accidentally sent a fax reading “Dismiss this case. The guy is the son of one of our deputies” to a newspaper, instead of to the village attorney.
Reed went on to become deputy clerk and then mayor after Mayor Tremylla Johnson was charged with violations of the Illinois Open Meeting Act. Johnson had pledged to restore the confidence of voters in the integrity of Alorton City Government after the arrest of McCallum, but had been appointed mayor at a secret meeting held in her house.
In response to the charges, Mayor Tremylla Johnson resigned for 3 minutes and was reappointed as mayor by a majority of trustee votes, including her own.
These stories can go on being told forever not just about Alorton, but about hundreds of Democratic Party controlled towns, villages and cities. What these places have in common is that their corruption emerges from the absolute rule of one party.
By giving away their votes wholesale to the Democratic Party, African-Americans have handed over power to a corrupt political machine that offers them no alternatives; only poverty, theft and misery.

Click on the link above:

CRIME, POVERTY AND EBT

WHAT THE LIBERAL NEWS DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW


The following is an article about black violence on white people in Baltimore. The whole article can be read by clicking on the link below:


BEING WHITE IN BALTIMORE

Black History Month in Baltimore is a busy, busy time.  Every aspect of black life in this city is remembered and 
celebrated:  Black schools. Black trains. Black music. Black 
movies. Black churches. Black literature.  Black clothing. Black politicians, like the last two mayors.
Much like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday celebration in January. And Kwaanza the month before that.
Then Tracey Halvorsen had to go and spoil it all: She wrote an article about crime in Baltimore. How she and her mostly white neighbors live in fear. And no one seems to care. Or worse, lots of people think it is normal.
This Baltimore business woman let it all hang out in an article that is going viral called “Baltimore City,You Are Breaking My Heart,” for an on-line magazine called Medium.com. A few quotes:
“I’m tired of being looked at like prey.”
“I’m tired of thinking about the horrifying final moments for 51 year old neighbor, Kim Leto, stabbed to death in her own home by two teenagers.”
“I’m tired of wondering why city leaders haven’t said shit about recent horrific murders committed by children in supposedly “safe” neighborhoods.
“I’m tired of living next to a beautiful park that I’m scared to walk into at any time of day, thanks to regular stories of day-time muggings, drug dealing and gang violence.”
Much like a similar article last year, “Being White in Philly,” this story contained all the requisite apologies. All the protestations about her black friends. All the denials that she was a racist.
That did not change one fundamental fact: Crime in Baltimore is a black thing. And black on white crime is a secret that is simply not discussed. Other than to excuse it as a product of white racism, that is.
As indictments go, Halvorsen’s was pretty mild. She left out the dozens and dozens of examples of black mob violence documented in Baltimore alone in  White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence and How the Media Ignore It.
In 2012, this violence became so bad that Maryland State legislator Pat McDonough asked the Governor to declare a “No-Travel” Zone around the downtown Inner Harber area. McDonough said he wanted to “prevent the consistent and dangerous attacks upon citizens by roving mobs of black youths.”
Yes, he really said that. There was more: “ St. Patrick’s Day witnessed another out-of-control incident involving hundreds of young people in a mob-like posture, fighting among themselves, and attacking innocent tourists and visitors to the harbor area.” A video of that beating and subsequent violence went viral and was seen by millions around the world.
McDonough saw an episode of black mob violence at the Inner Harbor while downtown with his wife.
Some of the violence is on video: Over the summer, just a few hours after a rally to protest the verdict in the trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin,  a black mob stalked and attacked a restaurant worker on his way home.  They put him in the hospital with broken bones all over his face.

At a Baltimore skating rink, black mob violence involving hundreds of people has a been a regular feature of weekend festivities for years. Assaults, property damage, attacks on police: Surrounding businesses have been hit as well.
The dozens of examples of black mob violence connected to the rink range from throwing bricks through police car windows to vandalizing the Denny’s restaurant next door. The violence includes beating clerks and stealing merchandise from a nearby convenience store, fighting with police, jumping on cars – breaking window and ruining paint – and much, much more:
Amber Ruth was caught up in one of the periodic spasms of violence where hundreds of “children” walk in the street, stop traffic, destroy property – and worse. Says Ruth to the plucky Patch newspaper:
“I was on my way home on a Friday night around 9:30pm and they shut down Skate Land at Putty Hill because of fighting and those little hoodlums busted out my back window with me sitting in my car when i was stopped at the light in at Rossville blvd & BelAir Rd.”
This is a very long list. But last summer it got so long that one of the largest employers in Baltimore, T. Rowe Price, threatened to move its headquarters out of downtown if the violence continued.
T. Rowe Price is still there: But more and more people like Halvorsen are deciding the old world charm, parks, and natural beauty are just not worth it anymore. Not if you have to worry about violence every day, everywhere you go. Not if friends have to borrow your pit bull for a stroll through the neighborhood.
Some of the black mob crime is aided by city officials. Last year, 13 guards were indicted for their role in allowing inmates who were members of the Black Guerilla Family gang to take over day to day operations of the Baltimore City Detention Center.  The guards, many of whom were women, allegedly “had become romantically involved with certain gang members—who smuggled drugs, cellphones, and other illicit material into the jail for the gang’s benefit,” said Slate.
The inmates are running the asylum.
The Baltimore Sun has been a leader in ignoring, condoning and denying the black mob violence and black on white crime. It led the effort to condemn Pat McDonough for his comments about violent black mobs. When it does report racial violence, it is only to dismiss it.
But racial violence came home to the Sun in January. One of its editors, John Fogg, was attacked when he was getting out of his car and heading for his house just a few blocks from Hlaversen’s.  His skull is fractured in six places. He lost 10 teeth.  The black suspect,  in custody, was recently arrested for two other assaults, but charges were dropped before the case came to trial.
That might have been Halversen’s tipping point: Like the “Being White in Philly” article, Halversen’s story is provoking what one observer called “one big group therapy dialogue — with every major media site in the city running stories on it.
Critics of the article are breaking down along racial lines: Many of the white commentators said race had nothing to do with crime in Baltimore.
The black commentators disagreed: They said crime had everything to with race: The white privilege that caused her to notice. The white racism that caused the black people to commit the crimes and violence.
“I think the problem here is that many white and/or upper/middle-class residents of Baltimore—and, of course, the Maryland suburbanites who work or play in Baltimore—show no sense of the structural problems plaguing the city and the roots of violence,” said Shereen at a local blog that focuses on journalism and music operated by NPR reporter Lawrence Lanahan.
Lanahan says its time to give some tough love to the white people in Baltimore who notice — and do not like –crime.
“It’s tough to talk about white privilege in the face of crimes like the ones Halvorsen cites, with innocent victims killed and badly injured and stunned families left to grieve,” Lanahan said.  “There’s also a lot that goes on, from individual decisions to local, state, and federal policy, that ensures–whether intentionally or not–that all the social ills stay where they “belong” in the neighborhoods that people like Halverson and, frankly, I won’t live in.
White neighborhoods get “more resources, than black neighborhoods” Lanahan said. That disparity somehow causes violence, he said.
The Medium news site published a push back a few days later: “What breaks my heart is when someone says they are tired of looking at black youth in the city as potential predators, as if they are the ones at fault,” said Tim Barnett. “What breaks my heart is when someone acknowledges the sadness of the death of a white woman, but does not acknowledge the sadness of the bleak lives of 2 young black men.”
Two young black men have been arrested in the recent home invasion and murder of Kim Leto, also close to Halversen’s home.
Salon published a piece from a college professor who said he and his friends were too poor to worry about what was happening to middle class white people.
So far the Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, has not made comments similar to what the Mayor of Philadelphia said about “Being White in Philly.”  He said it was despicable.
But her point of view on crime is clear: Last year, when the Governor of Maryland suggested that Baltimore should put more cops on the street to fight a spike in visible and violent crime, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was having none of that.
“Returning to the days of mass arrests for any and every minor offense might be a good talking point but it has been proven to be a far less effective strategy for actually reducing crime,” Rawlings-Blake said in a statement to the Baltimore Sun.
During her tenure, arrests have gone down to 50,000 a year, compared to 100,000 in 2005.
One of the reasons police do not arrest more black people in the Baltimore area is because black juries are often reluctant convict black defendants. This observation of racial jury tampering comes from academic and legal studies such as “Jury Nullification, Race, and The Wire.” And from David Simon, creator of the Baltimore crime drama, The Wire, a veteran of 13 years on the cop beat for the Baltimore Sun.
Simon is the Hollywood uber-liberal who recently made a few headlines in the wake of the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin: “The season on African-Americans now runs year round,” he declared. “ If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford.”
In his recent book, Homicide, A Year on the Killing Streets, Simon talks about racial jury nullification with unusual candor:
“As with every other part of the criminal justice machine, racial issues permeate the jury system in Baltimore,” Simon said. “Baltimore prosecutors take almost every case into court with the knowledge that the crime will be seen through the lens of the black community’s historical suspicion of a white-controlled police department and court system.”
“The effect of race on the judicial system is freely acknowledged by prosecutors and defense attorneys-black and white alike-although the issue is rarely raised directly in court.”
“Race is instead a tacit presence that accompanies almost every panel of twelve into a Baltimore jury room. Once, in a rare display, a black defense attorney actually pointed to her own forearm while giving closing arguments to an all-black panel: “Brothers and sisters,” she said, as two white detectives went out of their minds in the back row of the gallery, “I think we all know what this case is about.”

Saturday, September 21, 2013

BIBLICAL CIVIL GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE BEAST; AND, THE BASIS FOR CIVIL RESISTANCE



BIBLICAL CIVIL GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE BEAST; AND, THE BASIS FOR CIVIL RESISTANCE

By By Greg Price, Copyright Oct., 1996


Reformation is desperately needed in our languishing nations. In the past, not only did biblical reformation sweep the church in doctrine, worship, and government, but also reformation of biblical Christianity was promoted and accelerated by Christian magistrates who wholeheartedly supported and defended the ministry of the reformed churches. Reformation is never easy. The truth is no more fashionable today than it was at the time of our reformed and covenanted forefathers. If we would see reformation we must return to the old paths of our God and of our forefathers. What is presented in the following pages is not a novel view of civil magistracy, but one which is believed to be both biblical and representative of our reformed and presbyterian forefathers from the covenanted reformation at the time of the Westminster Assembly. Civil magistracy is a blessed ordinance of the living God, given to the human family in order that it might reflect the order in which God so much delights ("For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace" 1 Cor. 14:33). This ordinance should be so cherished by God's people that when the ruling civil magistrate cannot be owned as "the ordinance of God" within a nation, the hearts of God's people both sadly bemoan that fact and earnestly pray that God would in His mercy remove His righteous anger from the land and grant nursing fathers to the church. May God be pleased to open the eyes of His people to the need for reformation in the divine ordinance of civil magistracy.

1. The Triune God is the supreme ruler of the universe ("The Lord God omnipotent reigneth" Rev. 19:6).

a. All civil, ecclesiastical, and domestic power (whether physical power or moral power) find their original source in God.

b. Thus, all creaturely power and authority (in whatever sphere exercised) is derivative from God ("For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen" Rom. 11:36) and accountable to God ("My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" Jms. 3:1).

2. Civil magistracy is a divine ordinance immediately derived from God as Creator ("Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" Rom. 13:1,2). Whereas ecclesiastical ministry is a divine ordinance immediately derived from Christ as Mediator ("And he [i.e. Christ--GLP] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors, and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" Eph. 4:11,12).

a. Thus, civil magistracy is a divine ordinance founded upon the law of nature (which law of nature was originally imprinted upon the conscience of Adam in his unfallen state, and was subsequently summarized in the decalogue, Ex. 20:3-17).

b. Even had Adam not fallen into sin, it seems unavoidable that there would have been a need for civil order among a sinless race of millions of human beings (albeit, civil order without the power of the sword). For angels though created without sin, were yet established according to a divinely ordered government from the beginning ("For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" Col. 1:16). Likewise, angels since the fall are ordered according to a government, both wicked angels ("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" Eph. 6:12) and holy angels ("But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me" Dan. 10:13).

c. Thus, as Gillespie has correctly observed, magistracy as a divine ordinance is founded in the law of nature, and therefore all nations (whether Christian or non-Christian) are under its obligation:

But magistracy or civil government hath a foundation in the law of nature and nations (yea, might and should have had place, and been of use, though man had not sinned); therefore, the reason of the proposition is because the law of nature and nations, and the law which was written in man's heart, in his first creation, doth not flow from Christ as Mediator, but from God as Creator.1

[F]or the political or civil power is grounded upon the law of nature itself, and for that cause it is common to infidels with Christians; the power ecclesiastical dependeth immediately upon the positive law of Christ alone: that [i.e. civil power--GLP] belongeth to the universal dominion of God the Creator over all nations; but this [i.e. ecclesiastical power--GLP] unto the special and economical kingdom of Christ the Mediator, which he exerciseth in the church alone, and which is not of this world.2

3. Civil magistracy is "the minister of God to thee for good" (Rom. 13:4).

a. Hence, civil government serves God (according to His moral law), and serves the people for their good (according to that same moral law).

b. The "good" which "the minister of God" administers on behalf of his subjects must be measured according to God's moral law in nature within a heathen nation ("For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts" Rom. 2:14,15) and according to God's moral law in Scripture within a Christian nation ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Tim. 3:16,17).

c. It is not merely that civil magistracy "should be the minister of God to thee for good", but rather that civil magistracy "is the minister of God to thee for good" (Rom. 13:4).

d. If it does not serve this end, then according to Paul it is not the divine ordinance of civil magistracy, "for the throne is established by righteousness" (Prov. 16:12).

4. Though civil government is founded upon God as Creator, it is administered by Christ as Mediator.

a. God has put all things under the feet of Christ, so that Christ as mediatorial head might govern all things to the benefit of the church (Eph. 1:22; cf. Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:27).

b. Civil government is pre-eminently included among the "all things" that God has given to Christ for the benefit of the church ("And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet" Is. 49:23; cf. Ps. 2:1-12; Ezra 1:1-4; Is. 60:1-22).

c. Because God has ordained civil magistracy for the benefit of the church, prayer is to be made on behalf of "kings, and all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim. 2:2).

5. Civil magistracy is "the ordinance of God" and "the minister of God to thee for good" by means of: (a) institution (i.e. meeting the qualifications for civil magistracy as found in God's moral law); and by means of (b) constitution (i.e. securing the consent of the people and the magistrate's investiture of power by means of a covenant between himself and the people).

a. Note the following biblical passages which confirm that civil magistracy is instituted upon the foundation of the moral law :

(1) Exodus 18:21


Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers.


(2) Deuteronomy 17:14,15,18,19


When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. . . . And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them. . . .


(3) 2 Samuel 23:2,3


The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.


(4) Job 34:17


Shall even he that hateth right govern?


(5) Psalm 94:20


Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee [i.e with God--GLP], which frameth mischief by a law?


(6) Proverbs 16:12


It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.


(7) Isaiah 10:1


Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.


(8) Romans 13:3,4


For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. . . . For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


b. Note the following historical quotations from our reformed forefathers and creeds which corroborate the Scriptures by declaring that civil magistracy is instituted to meet certain moral obligations:

(1) John Calvin

Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility. 3

It [i.e. civil government--GLP] does not, I repeat, look to this only, but also prevents idolatry, sacrilege against God's name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public peace from being disturbed; it provides that each man may keep his property safe and sound; that men may carry on blameless intercourse among themselves; that honesty and modesty may be preserved among men. In short, it provides that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that humanity be maintained among men. 4

Now in this place we ought to explain in passing the office of the magistrates, how it is described in the Word of God and the things in which it consists. If Scripture did not teach that it extends to both Tables of the Law, we could learn this from secular writers: for no one has discussed the office of magistrates, the making of laws, and public welfare, without beginning at religion and divine worship. . . . Since, therefore, among all philosophers religion takes first place, and since this fact has always been observed by universal consent of all nations, let Christian princes and magistrates be ashamed of their negligence if they do not apply themselves to this concern. And we have already shown that these duties are especially enjoined upon them by God; and it is fitting that they should labor to protect and assert the honor of him whose representatives they are, and by whose grace they govern. 5

(2) John Knox

Now, if the moral law is the constant and unchangeable will of God, to which the Gentile is no less bound than was the Jew; and if God wills, that amongst the Gentiles the ministers and executors of his law be now appointed, as sometimes they were appointed amongst the Jews; further, if the execution of justice is no less requisite in the policy of the Gentiles, than ever it was amongst the Jews; what man can be so foolish to suppose or believe, that God will now admit those persons to sit in judgment, or to reign over men in the commonwealth of the Gentiles, whom he by his expressed word and ordinance did before debar and exclude from the same? 6

No manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God's holy precepts, ought to be promoted to any public regiment [i.e. government--GLP], honour, or dignity, in any realm, province, or city that has subjected itself to his blessed evangel. 7

(3) George Buchanan

B.--Hence we shall find the voice of the king and of the law to be the same. But whence is their authority derived? The king's from the law or the law's from the king? M.--The king's from the law. B.--How do you come at that conclusion? M.--By considering that a king is not intended for restraining the law, but the law for restraining the king; and it is from the law that a king derives his quality of royalty; since without it he would be a tyrant. B.--The law then is paramount to the king, and serves to direct and moderate his passions and actions. 8

(4) Samuel Rutherford

So, if the king be a living law by office, and the law put in execution which God hath commanded, then, as the moral law is by divine institution, so must the officer of God be . . . the keeper, preserver, and avenger of God's law. 9

But then, this which they call perogative royal, is no more than a power to govern according to law . . . . 10

(5) George Gillespie

41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists, blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violators of justice and civil peace. 11

(6) Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici or The Divine Right of Church Government, originally asserted by the Ministers of Sion College, London (1646)

Nor is this only our private judgment, or the opinion of some few particular persons touching the granting or bounding of the magistrate's power about matters of religion; but with us we have the suffrage of many reformed churches, who, in their Confessions of Faith published to the world, do fully and clearly express themselves to the same effect.

The Helvetian church ["The First Confession of Helvetia" 1536--GLP] thus: Since every magistrate is of God, it is (unless he would exercise tyranny) his chief duty, all blasphemy being repressed, to defend and provide for religion, and to execute this to his utmost strength, as the prophet teacheth out of the word; in which respect the pure and free preaching of God's word, a right, diligent, and well-instituted discipline of youth, citizens and scholars; a just and liberal maintenance of the ministers of the church, and a solicitous care of the poor, (whereunto all ecclesiastical means belong,) have the first place. After this, &c.

The French churches ["The Confession of France" 1559--GLP] thus: He also therefore committed the sword into the magistrates' hands, that they might repress faults committed not only against the second table, but also against the first. . . .

The Belgic church ["The Belgic Confession" 1566--GLP] thus: Therefore he hath armed the magistrates with a sword, that they may punish the bad and defend the good. Furthermore, it is their duty not only to be solicitous about preserving of civil polity, but also to give diligence that the sacred ministry may be preserved, all idolatry and adulterate worship of God may be taken out of the way, the kingdom of antichrist may be pulled down, but Christ's kingdom propagated. . . . 12

(7) "The Confession of Saxony" (1551)

First, God would that the magistrate without all doubt should sound forth the voice of the moral law among men touching discipline, according to the Ten Commandments, or the law natural; that is he would first, by the voice of the magistrate, have sovereign and immutable laws to be propounded, forbidding the worship of idols, blasphemies, perjuries, unjust murders, wandering lusts, breach of wedlock, thefts and frauds in bargains, in contracts, and in judgments. . . . And well hath it been said of old, 'The magistrate is the keeper of the law;' that is, of the First and Second Table, as concerning discipline and good order." 13

(8) "The Confession of Faith" of Scotland (1560)

Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied. 14

(9) "The National Covenant" of Scotland (1638)

That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn oath, in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to the uttermost of their power, according as he hath required in his most holy word, contained in the Old and New Testament; and according to the same word shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm, (according to the Confession of Faith immediately preceding) and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people committed to their charge, according to the will and command of God revealed in his foresaid word, and according to the laudable laws and constitutions received in this realm, nowise repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; and shall procure, to the uttermost of their power, to the kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming: and that they shall be careful to root out of their empire all hereticks and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes. 15

(10) "The Solemn League and Covenant" Of The Three Kingdoms Of Scotland, England, And Ireland (1643)

III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several avocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty's just power and greatness. 16

(11) "The Westminster Confession of Faith" (1647)

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. 17

(12) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649)

It doth therefore concerne all ranks and conditions of persons to be the more warie and circumspect, especially in that which concerns the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, that before his Majestie [i.e. Charles II--GLP] be admitted to the exercise of his Royall Power, that by and attour the Oath of Coronation, he shall assure and declare by his Solemn Oath under his hand and seal his allowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant, and obligation to prosecute the ends thereof in his Station and Calling, and that he shall for himself and his successours, consent and agree to Acts of Parliament, injoyning the Solemn League and Covenant, and fully Establishing Presbyterial Government, the Directory of Worship, the Confession of Faith and Catechisme, as they are approven by the General Assembly of this Kirk and Parliament of this Kingdom, in all his Majesties Dominions, and that he shall never make opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof. 18

c. Civil magistracy is recognized and acknowledged to be "the ordinance of God" and "the minister of God to thee for good" not only by means of institution (i.e. meeting the qualifications for civil magistracy as found in God's moral law in nature and in Scripture), but also by means of constitution (i.e. securing the consent of the people and being invested with power by means of a covenant [whether explicit or implicit] between the magistrate and the people). Note the following biblical passages which confirm that the office of civil magistracy is ordained by God, but that the civil magistrate himself is constituted by consent of and covenant with the people.

(1) Deuteronomy 17:14,15 (emphases added)

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee.


(2) Judges 8:22 (emphases added)


Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us.


(3) Judges 9:6 (emphases added)


And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king.


(4) Judges 11:11 (emphases added)


Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them.


(5) 1 Samuel 11:15 (emphases added)


And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal.


(6) 1 Chronicles 12:38 (emphases added)


All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.


(7) 2 Samuel 16:18 (emphases added)


And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay; but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel, choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide.


(8) 2 Kings 14:21 (emphases added)


And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king.


(9) 2 Chronicles 23:3 (emphases added)


And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God.

d. Not only does God's Word establish that the civil magistrate is constituted and invested with power by the people, but this is confirmed by our reformed forefathers as well.

(1) John Knox

It is not birth only, nor propinquity [i.e. nearness--GLP] of blood, that makes a king lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ Jesus and his eternal verity; but in his election must the ordinance, which God has established in the election of inferior judges, be observed. 19

But if either rashly they have promoted any manifestly wicked, or yet ignorantly have chosen such a one, as after declares himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God (and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors), most justly may the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they did nominate, appoint, and elect. 20

(2) Samuel Rutherford

If God doth regulate his people in making this man king, not that man, then he thereby insinuateth that the people have a power to make this man king, and not that man. But God doth regulate his people in making a king; therefore the people have a power to make this man, not that man king. 21

Therefore it remaineth only that the suffrages of the people of God is that just title and divine calling that kings have now to their crowns. 22

(3) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649)

It doth therefore concerne all ranks and conditions of persons to be the more warie and circumspect, especially in that which concerns the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, that before his Majestie [i.e. Charles II] be admitted to the exercise of his Royall Power, that by and attour the Oath of Coronation, he shall assure and declare by his Solemn Oath under his hand and seal his allowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant, and obligation to prosecute the ends thereof in his Station and Calling, and that he shall for himself and his successours, consent and agree to Acts of Parliament, injoyning the Solemn League and Covenant, and fully Establishing Presbyterial Government, the Directory of Worship, the Confession of Faith and Catechisme, as they are approven by the General Assembly of this Kirk and Parliament of this Kingdom, in all his Majesties Dominions, and that he shall never make opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof. 23

6. Subjection for conscience sake, tribute, fear, and honor is wholeheartedly due to civil magistracy that can be identified as "the minister of God to thee for good" (Rom. 13:4). This alone is "the ordinance of God" (Rom. 13:2).

a. It is a flagrant violation of God's moral law (the fifth commandment) to resist the ordinance of civil magistracy, for in so doing, one is resisting God ("Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" Rom. 13:2).

b. To submit to civil authority "for conscience sake" certainly implies that the civil magistracy in question is approved both by God's moral law and by the people within the kingdom.

c. John Knox establishes that only lawful magistrates (not tyrants) are "the ordinance of God", and therefore are to be given the submission required by the apostle Paul in Romans 13:

As the apostle in these words [i.e. Rom. 13:1-4--GLP] most straitly commanded obedience to be given to lawful powers, pronouncing God's wrath and vengeance against such as shall resist the ordinance of God. . . . And this one point I wish your wisdoms deeply to consider, that God has not placed you above your brethren to reign as tyrants without respect of their profit and commodity. You hear the Holy Ghost witness the contrary, affirming that all lawful powers are God's ministers, ordained for the wealth [well-being--the editor has added this explanatory note], profit, and salvation of their subjects, and not for their destruction. Could it be said (I beseech you) that magistrates, enclosing their subjects in a city without all victuals, or giving unto them no other victuals but such as were poisoned, did rule for the profit of their subjects? I trust that none would be so foolish as so to affirm; but that rather every discreet person would boldly affirm, that such as did so were tyrants unworthy of all regiment [i.e. government--GLP].24

d. Christopher Goodman ( a contemporary of Knox), who received the wrath and threats of Mary Tudor of England for his uncompromising stance as to what constituted lawful civil magistracy, has written:

Otherwise, if without fear they [i.e. civil magistrates--GLP] transgress God's laws themselves and command others to do the like, then have they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise their subjects did owe unto them: and ought no more to be taken for magistrates: but punished as private transgressors. . . .25

e. "The Confession of Saxony" (1551) repeatedly draws the reader's attention to the word "lawful" in the article entitled "Of the Civil Magistrate" (thus recognizing that there is a necessary distinction to be drawn between a lawful and unlawful magistrate, and that conscientious subjection is due to the lawful magistrate alone).

We teach, therefore, that in the whole doctrine of God delivered by the Apostles and Prophets, the order and degrees of the civil state are avouched; and that magistrates, laws, judgments, and the lawful society of mankind, are not by chance sprung up among men: and that, although there be many horrible confusions, which grow from the devil, and the madness of men, yet that the lawful government and society of men is ordained of God. . . . This heavenly doctrine we propound unto the churches, which establisheth lawful authority, and the whole civil state. . . . His wisdom is declared by order; which consists in the discerning of virtues and vices, and in the associating of mankind under lawful governments, and by contracts arranged in marvellous wisdom.26

f. "The Confession of Faith" of Scotland (1560) affirms the duty of all men to be subject to the supreme authority as God's ordinance so long as the magistrate does that which belongs to his office:

So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole state of civil policies, now long established; we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against God's expressed will. . . . And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which appertains to his charge), do resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. 27

g. "The Belgic Confession" (1566) was written in the heat of political upheaval within France, and likewise specifies that Christians are to be subject to lawful magistrates (for if the qualification "lawful" simply means any ruler, whether he be tyrant or nursing father, then the qualification is meaningless and unnecessary).

Moreover all men, of what dignity, condition, or state soever they be, ought to be subject to their lawful magistrates, and pay unto them subsidies and tributes, and obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God. 28

h. "The Westminster Confession of Faith" (1647), acknowledged by many to be the most precise and faithful creed of orthodox Christianity, specifically states that only "lawful" civil power is not to be resisted as "the ordinance of God." Thus, it follows (from not just one reformed theologian, but from this entire assembly of reformed divines who met over a period of five years) that since only "lawful" civil power is "the ordinance of God", then only "lawful" civil magistracy is to be submitted to for conscience sake, and honored as "the minister of God to thee for good." The reformed divines of the Westminster Assembly manifestly acknowledged a necessary distinction between lawful and unlawful magistracy.

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. 29

7. "The ordinance of God" (Rom. 13:2) is not equivalent to every civil authority that God in His providence places upon a throne. That which God directs in history by His providence is not necessarily that which He orders by His moral precepts (and it is by His moral precepts that civil magistracy is instituted). Therefore, it must be maintained that "the ordinance of God" is determined by the moral and revealed will of God (rather than by His providential will). For if there is no distinction established between God's moral will and God's providential will in determining who is "the ordinance of God" the following errors will certainly result:

a. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of God and the providential will of God, then providence is equally in all respects the rule of duty, as much as is the precept. Then no matter how evil a civil magistrate becomes he must be acknowledged to be "the ordinance of God" and "the minister of God to thee for good."

b. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive will of God and the providential will of God, then providence must express God's approbation and institution in civil government as much as His preceptive will. One must conclude then that anything God states in His moral law concerning civil government is merely a suggestion (rather than a moral commandment) from God which civil magistrates may take or leave at their own discretion.

c. If there is no difference between the providential will of God and the moral will of God, then why would only murderers and thieves who ascend to the civil throne be acknowledged as "the ministers of God to thee for good", and not the murderer or the thief who usurps the place of a father as head in his family, or who slaughters the elders of a church and claims authority to rule in the church? If one would not recognize the tyrant who usurps the leadership in a family or a church as "the ordinance of God", why should he recognize the tyrant who usurps the leadership in a nation?

d. If, in fact, we are to acknowledge as "the ordinance of God" whoever may sit upon a throne (and merely because he has gained the scepter to the throne in God's providence), then we must acknowledge as "the minister of God to thee for good" the beast of Revelation (i.e. the tyrannical civil power of anti-Christ Rome) who receives his power from Satan (Rev. 13:2,4), who is worshipped by all those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 13:4), who blasphemes God in his official capacity (Rev. 13:6), and who murders and persecutes God's people. Furthermore, we must in all consistency acknowledge Satan as "the minister of God to thee for good", for he is the one who gives the beast his power and who is designated "the prince of this world" (Jn. 12:31; Jn. 14:30)

e. Such a fallacious view of civil magistracy would justify the very sin of resistance against a lawful civil government which Paul forbids ("Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" Rom. 13:2). For whoever could successfully gain the scepter to the throne by God's providential will (even if it was to remove the scepter from the hands of a righteous ruler) would become "the ordinance of God" to whom the people must submit for conscience sake and honor as "the minister of God to thee for good."

f. Or this erroneous view of civil magistracy could just as well forbid and renounce all resistance (under any condition) against the civil magistrate that is in power (regardless of his wicked tyranny), and in so doing denounce all revolutions against tyranny as wicked (e.g. the revolutions of righteous judges and kings against tyranny found in the pages of Scripture; or the revolutions against tyranny in history as in the case of the Dutch under William of Orange against the Spanish, or the resistance of Scotland against the tyranny of Charles I, or the U.S. war for independence against the tyranny of the king of England; or even the resistance of a Christian against Satan who gives to the beast his civil power to rule).

g. This unbiblical view of civil magistracy is contrary to the Word of God wherein the Spirit of God testifies that the actual possession of the throne, under the providential power of God, may be in the hands of one ruler, while the moral power and "ordinance of God" is in the hands of another.

(1) Though Absalom had won the hearts of the people of Israel and had removed David from the throne (2 Sam. 15-18), did he by his mere possession of the throne become "the ordinance of God?" If not, then mere possession of civil power does not institute nor constitute one as "the minister of God to thee for good." Furthermore, was David divested of his lawful authority to rule upon the throne of Israel because he was unseated by his son?

(2) Though wicked Athaliah had reached the throne of Judah (in God's providence) by murdering all her royal grandsons (except Joash who was hidden from her), she was not acknowledged to be "the ordinance of God." Rather she was an usurper of the throne, and was rightfully slain as a tyrant when Joash ("the ordinance of God") ascended to the throne (2 Chron. 22:10-23:15).

(3) Though Jehoram was by God's providence ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, Elisha the prophet would not give to him the conscientious subjection or honor which was due "the ordinance of God" ("And Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee" 2 Kgs. 3:14).

(4) Godmakes it abundantly clear in His word that He does not recognize as His "ordinance" or as His "minister" every magistrate that sits upon a throne, for in rebuking the northern kingdom of Israel for their wickedness, He declares: "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not" (Hos. 8:4). If these kings were not established according to God's moral law, then they were not given authority to rule by God and cannot be "the minister of God to thee for good."

(5) Therefore, the "higher powers" (Rom. 13:1) to which Christians are to be subject for conscience sake, the "powers" that are ordained of God, the "powers" that are "the minister of God to thee for good", and the "powers" that are to be honored, are those who hold a moral power (according to God's moral law in nature and in Scripture) to the throne, not those who merely hold a military power or popular power to the throne (according to God's sovereign providence) .

8. Tyrants who claim regal authority to rule over a kingdom cannot receive the conscientious subjection of Christians.

a. Christians can no more submit for conscience sake to a tyrant who sits upon the throne (by God's providence) than they can submit for conscience sake to the beast (Rev. 13:1-8) or to Satan who both rule by God's providential will.

b. In fact, tyrants ought to be actively resisted for conscience sake by the following means: not granting to them conscientious subjection, not acknowledging them to be the ordinance of God, not honoring them as the minister of God to thee for good, disobeying their unlawful commands, testifying against their wicked rule, praying for the demise of their throne which is established upon wickedness, fleeing their wrath when necessary, and as a last resort revolting against their tyrannical rule when force is necessary for self-defence.

c. This is not sedition, treason, nor revolutionary anarchy, unless one is also willing to condemn the approved testimony of saints in biblical history and in extra-biblical history of these crimes (yea even willing to condemn God Himself for approving such civil resistance), for such a view of lawful resistance against tyrants is neither foreign to Scripture nor to our reformed forefathers.

d. Consider the following incidents of lawful resistance against tyrants in Scripture (this list could easily be multiplied so as to include many more examples, but this should suffice to demonstrate the biblical warrant of lawful resistance against tyrants).

(1) Abraham resisted the wicked alliance of kings who had conquered Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not acknowledge them to be "the minister of God" merely because they had gained a military power to rule (in God's providence), but rather Abraham defeated them and rescued Lot from their clutches (Gen. 14:13-16).

(2) Moses did not recognize Pharaoh as "the ordinance of God", but resisted his tyranny and delivered Israel from servitude in Egypt (Ex. 7-14).

(3) Judges such as Othniel (Judg. 3:8-11), Ehud (Judg. 3:12-30), Shamgar (Judg. 3:31), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4), Gideon (Judg. 6-8), Jephthah (Judg.11-12), and Samson (Judg. 13-16) resisted tyrants who ruled over Israel rather than granting to them subjection for conscience sake.

(4) David did not subject himself for conscience sake to Absalom as a "higher power" to whom honor was due as "the ordinance of God", but resisted him even though Absalom had won the hearts of all the people of Israel and had gained military control of Israel (2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam. 18:6-8).

(5) Elijah did not honor Ahab as "the minister of God" for good, but resisted him by fleeing from him and his wicked queen (1 Kgs. 17:3; 1 Kgs. 19:3), and by taking the sword from the hands of Ahab so that he and the people slew the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18:40).

(6) Elijah did not acknowledge the lawful authority of king Ahaziah to rule over Israel, for he resisted the king by not obeying the king's order to compear before him and even brought God's fiery judgment upon the representatives of Ahaziah's authority (2 Kgs. 1:9-13).

(7) Jehoiada did not subject himself for conscience sake to the tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death even though she accused all those who resisted her of treason (2 Chron. 23:12-15).

(8) God Himself resisted the idolatrous kings of Israel by not acknowledging them to be ministers whom He appointed (Hos. 8:4).

(9) Jesus instructed His disciples that when they were delivered up to gentile kings for Christ's sake, rather than acknowledging them to be "the ordinance of God", they were to testify against them (Mt. 10:18), and to flee their tyranny rather than submit to them for conscience sake (Mt. 10:23).

(10) God gives wings to the church to flee from the persecution which Satan brings against her by means of tyrannical civil and ecclesiastical government rather than commanding the church to render conscientious subjection to such tyranny (Rev. 12:14).

(11) "The prince of this world" (Jn. 14:30) is to be resisted by Christians (Jms. 4:7). If Satan (who grants power to wicked tyrants to rule) is to be resisted, should not tyrants who rule by Satan's wicked power also be resisted? If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power ?

b. The following quotations from reformed forefathers and creeds also confirm that habitual tyranny upon a throne is not "the ordinance of God", and must be resisted.

(1) John Calvin

For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings . . . I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that , if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God's ordinance. 30

For earthly princes lay aside all their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather utterly to defy than to obey them whenever they are so restive [i.e. obstinately disobedient--GLP] and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven.31

(2) John Ponet

If a prince rob and spoil his subjects, it is theft, and as a thief [he--GLP] ought to be punished. If he kill and murder them contrary or without the laws of his country, it is murder, and as a murderer he ought to be punished. If he commit adultery, he is an adulterer and ought to be punished with the same pains that others be. If he violently ravish men's wives, daughters, or maidens, the laws that are made against ravishers, ought to be executed on him. If he go about to betray his country, and to bring the people under a foreign power: he is a traitor, and as a traitor he ought to suffer.32

(3) John Knox

3. Neither can oath nor promise bind any such people to obey and maintain tyrants against God and against his truth known.

4. But if either rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked person, or yet ignorantly have chosen such a one, as after declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God (and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors), most justly may the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they did nominate, appoint, and elect. 33

(4) Christopher Goodman

Otherwise, if without fear they [i.e. civil magistrates--GLP] transgress God's laws themselves and command others to do the like, then have they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise their subjects did owe unto them: and ought no more to be taken for magistrates: but punished as private transgressors. . . .34

[T]he apostle saith: There is no power but of God [Rom. 13:1--GLP]: yet doth he not here mean any other powers, but such as are orderly and lawfully institute of God. Either else should he approve all tyranny and oppression, which cometh to any commonwealth by means of wicked and ungodly rulers, which are to be called rightly disorders, and subversions in commonwealths, and not God's ordinance. For he never ordained any laws to approve, but to reprove and punish tyrants, idolaters, papists and oppressors. Then when they [i.e. rulers--GLP] are such, they are not God's ordinance. And in disobeying and resisting such, we do not resist God's ordinance, but Satan, and our sin, which is the cause of such. Or else, if we shall so conclude with the words of the Apostle [i.e. Paul in Rom. 13:1,2--GLP], that all powers whatsoever they be must be obeyed and not resisted, then must we confess also, that Satan and all his infernal powers are to be obeyed.35

But where as the kings or rulers are become altogether blasphemers of God, and oppressors and murderers of their subjects, then ought they to be acconpted [i.e. accounted--GLP] no more kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men: and to be examined, accused, condemned and punished by the law of God, whereunto they are and ought to be subject, and being convicted and punished by that law, it is not man's but God's doing: who as he doth appoint such magistrates over his people by his law, so doth he condemn as well them as the people transgressing against the law. For with God there is no respect of persons. . . .36

(5) Junius Brutus

The question is , If it be lawful to resist a prince violating the law of God, or ruinating the church, or hindering the restoring of it? If we hold ourselves to the tenure of the Holy Scripture it will resolve us. For, if in this case it had been lawful to the Jewish people (the which may be easily gathered from the books of the Old Testament), yea, if it had been enjoined them, I believe it will not be denied, that the same must be allowed to the whole people of any Christian kingdom or country whatsoever. 37

It is then lawful for Israel to resist the king, who would overthrow the law of God and abolish His church; and not only so, but also they ought to know that in neglecting to perform this duty, they make themselves culpable of the same crime, and shall bear the like punishment with their king. 38

If their [i.e. the civil magistrate's--GLP] assaults be verbal, their defence must be likewise verbal; if the sword be drawn against them, they may also take arms, and fight either with tongue or hand, as occasion is. . . . 39

(6) George Buchanan

But those [i.e. civil magistrates--GLP] who openly exercise their power, not for the country, but for themselves, and pay no regard to the public interest, but to their own gratification; who reckon the weakness of their fellow-citizens the establishment of their own authority, and who imagine royalty to be, not a charge entrusted to them by God, but a prey offered to their rapacity, are not connected with us by any civil or human tie, but ought to be put under an interdict [i.e. cut off from civil authority--GLP], as open enemies to God and man. 40

(7) Henry Bullinger

So then, verily, we ought not at any time to defend the tyrannical power, and say that it is of God: for tyranny is not divine, but a devilish, kind of government; and tyrants themselves are properly the servants of the devil, and not of God. . . .41

(8) Samuel Rutherford

That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can tie none to subjection, but is a mere tyrannical power and unlawful; and if it tie not to subjection, it may lawfully be resisted. 42

That to resist the king or parliament, is to resist them while as they are doing the thing that appertaineth to their charge, and while they vigilantly travel in the execution of their office. But while king and parliament do acts of tyranny against God's law, and all good laws of men, they do not the things that appertain to their charge and the execution of their office; therefore, by our Confession [i.e. the Scottish Confession of Faith, 1560--GLP], to resist them in tyrannical acts is not to resist the ordinance of God. 43

(9) John Brown of Wamphray

There is great difference to be put betwixt actual disobeying of, rebelling against, and violently, with force of arms, resisting the lawful magistrate's doing his duty, and commanding just things, warranted by the laws of God and the land, and [on the other hand--GLP] disobeying his unjust acts, and resisting his violent, tyrannical, oppressing, plundering, spoiling and killing armies. The former is a resisting of the very ordinance of God, forbidden [in--GLP] Rom. xiii., where the Apostle is speaking of the civil magistrate doing his duty, and, in his place, as God's deputy, exercising his office; but, in the other case, the magistrate is out of his function and calling; for God giveth no command to do evil, nor to tyrannise. He is not God's vicegerent when he playeth the tyrant, and therefore he may be resisted and opposed without any violence done to the office or ordinance of God. . . . for it is only powers that are ordained of God that must not be resisted; and tyrants, or magistrates turning tyrants, and exercising tyranny, cannot be called the ordinance of God. . . and so there is no danger in resisting such acts of tyranny; for tyrants exercising tyranny are no terror to evil-doers, but, on the contrary, they are a terror to good works; and therefore that place, Rom. xiii., cannot be understood of tyrants. It is a true and a worthy saying of famous Mr. Knox, in his History of Scotland, lib. 2, p. 141, "There is a great difference betwixt the authority which is God's ordinance and the persons of those who are placed in authority. The authority and God's ordinance can never do wrong, but the corrupt person placed in authority may offend: so that the king, as king, is one thing, and the king acting in tyranny is another thing" . . . . Tyranny is one thing and the office of the king is another thing. . . . 44

(10) Alexander Shields

So that in conscience, we are no more free to prostitute our loyalty and liberty absolutely, in owning every possessor of the magistracy; than we are free to prostitute our religion and faith implicitly, in owning every pretender to the ministry. 45

But now when tyrants go for magistrates, lest my plea against owning tyranny, should be mistaken, as if it were a pleading for anarchy, I must assert, that I and all those I am vindicating, are for magistracy, as being of divine original, institute for the common good of human and Christian societies, whereunto every soul must be subject. . . and not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. . . which whosoever resisteth, resisteth the ordinance of God, and against which rebellion is a damnable sin. . . . We would give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's; but to tyrants, that usurp and pervert both the things of God and of Caesar, and of the peoples liberties, we can render none of them, neither God's, nor Caesar's, nor our own: nor can we from conscience give him any other deference, but as an enemy to all, even to God, to Caesar, and the people. 46

It is not any one or two acts contrary to the royal covenant or office, that doth denude a man of the royal dignity, that God and the people gave him. . . . There is a great difference between a tyrant in act, and a tyrant in habit; the first does not cease to be a king. But on the other hand, as every thing will not make a magistrate a tyrant; so nothing will make a tyrant by habit a magistrate. 47

(11) "The First Helvetic Confession" (1536)

Seeing that every magistrate is of God, his chief duty (except it please him to exercise a tyranny) consisteth in this: to defend and protect religion from all blasphemy . . . .48

(12) "The Confession of Faith" of Scotland (1560)

[Addressing sin which God finds "most odious, which always displeases him, and provokes him to anger" is the following sin--GLP] to disobey or resist any that God has placed in authority (while they pass not over the bounds of their office).49

And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that which appertains to his charge), do resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. 50

(13) "The Belgic Confession" (1566)

Moreover all men, of what dignity, condition, or state soever they be, ought to be subject to their lawful magistrates, and pay unto them subsidies and tributes, and obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God.51

(14) "The Westminster Confession of Faith" (1647)

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.52

If it is the duty of Christians not to resist "lawful" civil authority (as clearly affirmed in "The Confession of Faith", then it is also the duty of Christians to resist "unlawful" civil authority in as much as "where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden [e.g. as when the Word of God forbids resisting lawful civil magistracy in Rom. 13:2--GLP] the contrary duty is commanded [e.g. resisting unlawful civil magistracy--GLP]." 53

(15) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

But if his Majesty [Charles II--GLP], or any having, or pretending power and Commission from him, shall invade this Kingdom, upon pretext of establishing him in the exercise of Royal power, as it will be an high provocation against God to be accessory or assisting thereto, so will it be a necessary duty to resist and oppose the same. . . . That as Magistrates and their power is ordained of God, so are they in the exercise thereof, not to walk according to their owne will, but according to the Law of equity and righteousnesse, as being the Ministers of GOD for the safety of his People; Therefore a boundless and illimited power is to be acknowledged in no King nor Magistrate; Neither is Our King to be admitted to the exercise of his power as long as he refuses to walk in the Administration of the same according to this rule, and the established Laws of the Kingdom, that his Subjects may live under him a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie. . . . In the League and Covenant which hath been so solemnly sworne and renewed by this Kingdom, the Dutie of defending and preserving the Kings Person and Authority is joyned with, and subordinat unto the dutie of preserving and defending the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms: And therefore his Majestie standing in opposition to the just and necessary publick desires concerning Religion and Liberties, it were a manifest Breach of Covenant, and a preferring of the Kings interest to the interest of Jesus Christ, to bring him to the exercise of his Royal power. . . . 54

9. Therefore, it is affirmed that the habitual tyrant who flagrantly violates the moral law of God is not "the ordinance of God", but rather "the ordinance of God" and "the minister of God to thee for good" is he who upholds God's moral law.

10. Furthermore, it is the moral duty of all Christians to resist civil governments which rule by tyranny and establish their thrones by wickedness. The habitual tyranny of unlawful civil governments against God's moral law and against His Christ is manifested in their framing "mischief by law" (Ps. 94:20). The following are just a few of the many notorious and habitual violations of God's moral law which are legally protected by national constitutions and civil ordinances in nations today.

a. Legal protection of idolatry and false worship within a nation that has been enlightened by the gospel, together with a refusal to establish the true reformed religion as the only established religion within that nation.

b. Refusal to affirm in constitutional documents that God's moral law is the supreme law of the land (within a nation enlightened by the gospel), but to the contrary, the legal declaration of an immoral constitution to be the supreme law of the land.

c. Refusal to nationally acknowledge Jesus Christ as the supreme Ruler of the nation whom all civil magistrates are obligated to "kiss" (i.e. to publicly honor) in their official functions (Ps. 2:12).

d. Legal protection of public blasphemy against the name of the Lord in all forms of media.

e. Refusal to prohibit all unnecessary work on the Lord's Day.

f. Tyranny exercised over families in prohibiting corporal discipline and home education without government certification.

g. Legal endorsement of the slaughter and murder of unborn children.

h. Legal protection of gross immorality, sexual perversion and heinous pornography.

i. Habitual theft through unjust and excessive taxes and through inflated paper currency.

j. Habitual covenant breaking.

(1) All nations, territories, and dominions that have descended from Great Britain are bound to uphold and to defend "The Solemn League and Covenant" (1643).55

(2) "The Solemn League and Covenant" is a civil covenant (it is also a personal covenant and an ecclesiastical covenant as well) which binds all those civil governments of nations that fall under it. The Westminster Assembly considered "all his Majesties dominions" bound by "The Solemn League and Covenant" (which included at that period in history the colonies in America and territories in Canada):

Those Winds which for a while do trouble the Aire, do withall purge and refine it: And our trust is that through the most wise Providence and blessing of God, the Truth by our so long continued agitations, will be better cleared among us, and so our service will prove more acceptable to all the Churches of Christ, but more especially to you, while we have an intentive eye to our peculiar Protestation, and to that publick Sacred Covenant [i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant--GLP] entered into by both the Kingdomes, for Uniformity in all his Majesties Dominions. 56

(3) Even as the lawful covenant of a father binds all his children presently living as well as those yet to be born ("Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers ?" Mal. 2:10, emphases added), likewise the lawful civil covenants of national parents bind their national progeny. If one is willing to grant that the lawful covenant of a father can bind any of his descendants, he must be willing to grant that the same lawful covenant binds all of his descendants, for the same moral obligation that rests upon any one descendant rests upon all descendants.

(4) The United States and Canada as nations (and all other national descendants of Great Britain) are children of Great Britain and are bound by the lawful covenant of their national father solemnly sworn with uplifted hands to the living God in 1643 and renewed on various occasions in Scotland and the United States by Reformed Christians.

(5) The passing of time, changing of national laws, constitutions, and boundaries cannot annul or alter the lawful covenants made with God, for it is God Himself who is the other party to "The Solemn League and Covenant" ,and He has not changed nor excused covenanted nations from their duties. This is confirmed by the Church of Scotland as it spoke officially through its General Assembly:

Albeit the League and Covenant [i.e. "The Solemn League and Covenant"--GLP] be despised by that prevailing party in England, and the Work of Uniformity, thorow [through--GLP] the retardements and obstructions that have come in the way, be almost forgotten by these Kingdoms, yet the obligation of that Covenant is perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded, and prosecute by every one of us and our posterity, according to their place and stations. . . . 57

Although there were none in the one Kingdome who did adhere to the Covenant, yet thereby were not the other Kingdom nor any person in either of them absolved from the bond thereof, since in it we have not only sworne by the Lord, but also covenanted with him. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve others from their duty or tye to him; Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves lawfull, and the grounds of our tye thereunto moral, though others do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that obligation which lyes upon us by the Covenant in our places and stations. And the Covenant being intended and entered into by these Kingdoms, as one of the best means of stedfastnesse, for guarding against declining times; It were strange to say that the back-sliding of any should absolve others from the tye thereof, especially seeing our engagement therein is not only nationall, but also personall, every one with uplifted hands swearing by himself, as it is evident by the tennor of the Covenant.. 58

From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these Kingdomes joyning together to abolish that oath by law, yet could they not dispense therewith; Much lesse can any one of them, or any part of them doe the same. The dispensing with oathes hath hitherto been abhorred as Antichristian, and never practiced and avowed by any, but by that man of sin [i.e. the papacy--GLP]; therefore those who take the same upon them, as they joyn with him in his sin, so must they expect to partake of his plagues. 59

(6) "The Solemn League and Covenant" was actually approved by and in the process of being adopted by the Reformed Church of the Netherlands as well as by other National Reformed Churches in Europe.

There was one great, even sublime idea, brought somewhat indefinitely before the Westminster Assembly, which has not been realized,--the idea of a Protestant union throughout Christendom, not merely for the purpose of counterbalancing Popery, but in order to purify, strengthen, and unite all true Christian Churches, so that with combined energy, and zeal they might go forth, in glad compliance with the Redeemer's commands, teaching all nations, and preaching the everlasting gospel to every creature under heaven. This truly magnificent, and also truly Christian idea, seems to have originated in the mind of that distinguised man, Alexander Henderson. It was suggested by him to the Scottish commissioners, and by them partially brought before the English Parliament, requesting them to direct the Assembly to write letters to the Protestant Churches in France, Holland, Switzerland, and other Reformed Churches. . . . [A]long with these letters were sent copies of the Solemn League and Covenant,--a document which might itself form the basis of such a Protestant union. The deep thinking divines of the Netherlands apprehended the idea, and in their answer, not only expressed their approbation of the Covenant, but also desired to join in it with the British kingdoms. Nor did they content themselves with the mere expression of approval and willingness to join. A letter was soon afterwards sent to the Assembly from the Hague, written by Duraeus (the celebrated John Dury), offering to come to the Assembly, and containing a copy of a vow which he had prepared and tendered to the distinguished Oxenstiern, chancellor of Sweden, wherein he bound himself "to prosecute a reconciliation between Protestants in point of religion". . . . But the intrigues of politicians, the delays caused by the conduct of the Independents, and the narrow-minded Erastianism of the English Parliament, all conspired to prevent the Assembly from entering farther into that truly glorious Christian enterprise. Days of trouble and darkness came; persecution wore out the great men of that remarkable period; pure and vital Christianity was stricken to the earth and trampled under foot. . . . 60

11. Lawful resistance (not revolutionary anarchy) against habitual tyrants is the duty of all Christians, for subjection for conscience sake is due only to him who is "the ordinance of God" and "the minister of God to thee for good." Lawful resistance will most certainly involve the following particular convictions and actions.

a. The habitual tyrant must be refused the honor which "the ordinance of God" alone is to be given.

b. The habitual tyrant must be refused subjection for conscience sake. Though the Christian should obey all the lawful commands of even an unlawful government (both because the command is agreeable to the Word of God and because Christians ought to seek to maintain as much order as possible in a nation until biblical changes can be made; for "legalized" tyranny, i.e. tyranny that has the consent of the people, is ordinarily better than revolutionary anarchy), there can no more be conscientious subjection to a tyrant's authority as "the ordinance of God" than to a murderer's authority or to a thief's authority as 'the ordinance of God."

c. An immoral national constitution which protects and defends the habitual and flagrant violation of God's moral law (in both tables) cannot be upheld and defended by solemn oaths nor can allegiance in any way be given to it. "The Westminster Confession of Faith" makes it exceedingly clear that to take an oath of allegiance to a constitution which protects and defends idolatry and immorality is an unlawful oath which a Christian cannot take.

I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.

III. Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch [i.e. affirm--GLP] nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able to perform.

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin. . . . 61

A moral wrong can never be lawfully constituted as a civil right. That which is contrary to God's moral law (or legally protects that which is contrary to God's moral law) can never be sworn to in an oath. When a national constitution protects idolatry and false worship rather than the true reformed religion, it has itself become a monument of idolatry. When a national constitution within a land that has been enlightened by the gospel omits any mention of the name of God or Christ, and defends the "right" of the atheist, the papist, the muslim, or the satanist to hold office, it is an anti-Christ document and cannot morally be the object of an oath of allegiance.

(1) "The Larger Catechism" (1648) declares that the duties required in the second commandment involve among others "the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry." 62 It is the place and calling of the civil magistrate to destroy all monuments of idolatry and false worship within the nation (especially immoral constitutions and laws which grant "civil rights" to idolaters, blasphemers, sabbath profaners, murderers, and sodomites). It is the place and calling of Christians in general to resist all complicity in oaths and allegiance to documents that promote and defend the "civil rights" of idolaters, etc. All of the reformed creeds in their original form clearly maintained it was the duty of the civil magistrate in a nation enlightened by the gospel to remove all monuments of idolatry and false religion (i.e. to uphold and defend both tables of the law--in fact it was the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Quakers who opposed this universally held position of the Reformed Churches in Britain and in Europe).

(2) Samuel Wylie, a Reformed Presbyterian minister of the nineteenth century, has accurately sized up the glaring inconsistency with most reformed and presbyterian churches in this observation:

And I have never been able to satisfy myself, how it was consistent, in those who profess Presbyterianism, to swear an oath [e.g. when assuming a civil or military position--GLP], which involves the supporting of idolatry, &c., while, at the same time, in their creeds and church constitutions, they solemnly recognize their obligation, in their respective stations, to remove every monument and vestige of it from the land [as expounded in "The Larger Catechism", Q. 108--GLP]. 63

d. Since a Christian cannot take an oath of allegiance to an immoral national constitution, two consequences must necessarily follow:

(1) A Christian cannot serve in any civil capacity that would require him to give conscientious subjection to or to swear an oath of allegiance to an immoral civil government or its national constitution. However, this does not preclude Christians from seeking the reformation of an immoral civil government if conscientious subjection to it (as "the ordinance of God") and an oath of allegiance are not required. In fact, if the Christian were not required to take an oath of allegiance to an immoral civil government, he would be free to cooperate with an immoral government in bringing biblical reformation to that nation (and even in assuming positions of authority and administration within that nation as did Joseph, Daniel, Mordecai, and Nehemiah). John Cunningham, a Reformed Presbyterian minister from Scotland, made the following significant observation concerning the immoral British Constitution in 1843:

The friends of truth cannot justifiably persevere in supporting the British Constitution as the ordinance of God. . . . The friends of truth under the present government should say to it in such a manner as not to be misunderstood,--We will obey your good laws, because they are good; but by oaths or otherwise we will not recognize your authority as of God.--We will co-operate with you in doing what is good; but so long as you continue to support evil, we cannot swear allegiance to you. Abolish all oaths of allegiance, and we will act along with you in every right matter.--Were all those who hold the truth in the united kingdom to do so, would not the request extort regard? And might not rulers see the propriety of yielding? Were such oaths to the present government abolished, then those who love the truth might enter parliament, and act without being responsible for the evils of the civil constitution and of the administration, and at the same time leadto essential political reformation; and the people could with a clear conscience return to parliament such men as might be possessed of proper character, and be of known attachment to the truth. Were a door opened in this manner for men consistently uttering their voice in the councils of the nation, then means should be assiduously used, on the part of the people and on the part of their representatives, for scripturally reforming the State, and for giving to true religion that external countenance and support which is due it. 64

(2) The second consequence that must necessarily follow from a Christian's refusal to violate God's moral law by taking an oath of allegiance to an immoral national constitution is that he will not consent to (nor participate in) the sins of others by voting for and electing people to civil office who will be required to take an unlawful oath to an immoral national constitution.

Those who, directly or indirectly, consent to the evil deeds of others are partakers in their criminality. Ps. 50:18: "When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him," which God severely reprehends. If, therefore, the constitution be essentially at war with the religion of Jesus, an homologation [i.e. an approval or ratification--GLP] of it is striking hands with his enemies. No oath of allegiance, therefore, can we swear, because we believe the constitution [i.e. the national constitution of the United States--GLP] to be contrary to the moral law, and our covenant engagements. Farther, we cannot elect public functionaries to fill the various offices in the state; for, between the elector and the elected, there is a representative oneness; so that every official act, done constitutionally by the latter [i.e. the elected official--GLP], is virtually done by the former [i.e. the one who elected the official--GLP], through his representative organ. He must, also, be introduced to office by an oath, homologating [i.e. approving and ratifying-- GLP] the constitution. Whatever, therefore, we cannot do ourselves, on account of its immorality, we ought not to employ others to perform. 65

e. A Christian must resist all unlawful commands of the civil magistrate (whether the one issuing the command is a lawful king or an unlawful tyrant): "We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29.

f. It is the duty of Christians both to testify against tyrannical civil government and to affirm the moral duties of civil magistracy and subjects under God's law. Civil reformation within a nation cannot occur without a faithful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For it is the truth of Jesus Christ that sets people free from sin, from ignorance, and from tyranny. Thus, the position of civil government espoused and defended herein strongly affirms that the primary resistance offered by Christians against tyranny in civil government is by means of moral persuasion accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit.

(1) Mark 13:9 (emphases added)

But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

(2) Revelation 11:7 (emphases added)

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

(3) Matthew 28:19,20 (emphases added)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . . .

g. Christians should resist tyrannical civil governments by earnestly praying that God would destroy the throne established by wickedness, that He would be pleased to convert unlawful magistrates who presently are His enemies, and that He would hasten the day when righteousness would shine forth from the scepter of the civil magistrate.

(1) According to "The Larger Catechism" it is the duty of Christians in the first petition of the Lord's Prayer to pray "that he [i.e. God--GLP] would prevent and remove atheism, ignorance, idolatry, profaneness, and whatsoever is dishonorable to him. . . ." 66 Such a prayer must necessarily involve removing all constitutional protection of such blasphemous violations of God's moral law in a nation that has been enlightened by the gospel.

(2) Furthermore, "The Larger Catechism" declares it is the duty of Christians in the second petition of the Lord's Prayer to pray "that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed" and that the gospel ordinances may be "purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate. . . ." 67 We are only to pray for that which is agreeable to the revealed will of God. Thus, the Westminster divines (as well as all Reformed Churches at that time) believed it to be in conformity to God's revealed will to pray that thrones "established by wickedness" and which framed "mischief by a law" be destroyed and that God would be pleased to establish thrones by righteousness which countenance and maintain the purity of the gospel ordinances against all atheism, idolatry, and false religion.

h. It is the duty of Christians to flee the unlawful authority of the tyrant when his opposition to the faithful testimony of truth brings persecution to the Christian. It is necessary to make clear that Christians are not to suffer for error or for wicked behavior. If a Christian must suffer, it must be for the testimony of the truth in Jesus Christ alone.

(1) Matthew 5:10-12 (emphases added)

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

(2) 1 Peter 3:14,17 (emphases added)

[I]f ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. . . . For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

(3) 1 Peter 4:14-16 (emphases added)

If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye. . . . But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

When persecution for the sake of the truth becomes the providential lot of Christians, they must resist the tyrant by fleeing from his unlawful authority and pretended jurisdiction. Fleeing the unlawful authority and unjust sentences of a tyrant is not passive subjection; to the contrary, it is active resistance against tyranny. Samuel Rutherford (one of the Scottish delegates to the Westminster Assembly) states clearly the duty of Christians in such circumstances:

Flying [i.e. fleeing--GLP] from the tyranny of abused authority, is a plain resisting of rulers in their unlawful oppression and perverting of judgment. 68

As the king is under God's law both in commanding and in exacting active obedience, so is he under the same regulating law of God, in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection, and as he may not command what he will, but what the King of kings warranteth him to command, so may he not punish as he will, but by warrant also of the Supreme Judge of all the earth; and therefore it is not dishonourable to the majesty of the ruler, that we deny passive subjection to him when he punisheth beside his warrant, more than it is against his majesty and honour that we deny active obedience when he commandeth illegally; else I see not how it is lawful to fly [i.e. flee--GLP] from a tyrannous king, as Elias [i.e. Elijah--GLP], Christ, and other of the witnesses of our Lord have done; and, therefore, what royalists say here is a great untruth, namely, that in things lawful we must be subject actively,--in things unlawful, passively. For as we are in things lawful to be subject actively, so there is no duty in point of conscience, laying on us to be subject passively, because I may lawfully fly [i.e. flee-- GLP], and so lawfully deny passive subjection to the king's will, punishing unjustly. 69

i. As a last resort against tyrannical civil government which embarks upon a reign of terror against its own people, Christians may use force in self-defence to subdue the violent rage of the civil magistrate. It has been previously demonstrated both from Scripture (cf. pp. 19,20) and from history (cf. pp. 20-26) that tyrants may be subdued by force. The intensity with which such resistance should be maintained against a tyrant is appropriately stated by Junius Brutus:

If their [i.e. the civil magistrate's--GLP] assaults be verbal, their defence must be likewise verbal; if the sword be drawn against them, they may also take arms, and fight either with tongue or hand, as occasion is. . . .70

j. It is affirmed by our reformed forefathers that resistance by means of force in cases of self-defence is not contrary to biblical commands which call Christians to be subject to lawful magistrates (and not to resist them), or biblical commands which call Christians to suffer patiently under harsh rulers. Samuel Rutherford has faithfully expounded such biblical passages (as those found in Romans 13:1,2 and 1 Peter 2:13-20), and clearly demonstrates that these passages cannot be made to contradict the rest of God's Word (where resistance by means of force in self-defence is approved), and that these texts themselves do not contradict biblical resistance (whether resistance without force or resistance by means of force). Rutherford reasons:

(1) Patient suffering under wicked men and resisting them by means of force are not incompatible, but may very well stand together.

One act of grace and virtue is not contrary to another; resistance is in the children of God an innocent act of self-preservation, as is patient suffering, and therefore they may well subsist in one. . . . The scope of the place (1 Pet. ii.) is not to forbid all violent resisting, as is clear he speaketh nothing of violent resisting either one way or other, but only he forbiddeth revengeful resisting of repaying one wrong with another, from the example of Christ, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not;" therefore, the argument is a falacy. . . therefore, the servant who should violently resist his master in the aforesaid case [i.e. when his master should seek to kill him--GLP] should, and might patiently suffer and violently resist. . . . 71

(2) Suffering while under wicked tyranny and yet offering a passive non-resistance is nowhere found to be the moral duty of a Christian, except under two extraordinary conditions: 1. The passive obedience of Christ in which He was commanded to lay down His life for His people, and thus could not resist tyranny; 2. The positive command of God not to resist while suffering as in the extraordinary cases of Christ and the Israelites under Nebuchadnezzar (where the Israelites are commanded to serve the king of Babylon for seventy years as just recompense for their flagrant sin against God, Jer. 27:12) .

All these places of God's word, that recommendeth suffering to the followers of Christ, do not command formally that we suffer; therefore, suffering falleth not formally under any commandment of God. . . . they prove only that comparatively we are to choose rather to suffer than to deny Christ before men . . . . and therefore neither Rom. xiii., nor 1 Pet. ii., nor any other place in God's word, any common divine, natural, national or any municipal law, commandeth formally obedience passive, or subjection passive, or non-resistance under the notion of passive obedience. . . . 72

(3) The passage in 1 Peter 2:18 calls a Christian servant not to retaliate against his master by doing to the master as the master has done to him, and in so doing the Christian is to suffer after the example of his Lord who when he was reviled, did not revile in return. However, the passage does not imply that resistance by means of force is unlawful in cases of self-defence.

(4) When resistance (by means of force) is necessary in self-defence against the violence of an unlawful civil magistrate, it is not the lawful office or the lawful power of the civil magistrate that is being resisted (Rutherford refers to the lawful office of the magistrate as "the king in abstracto "), rather it is the abuse of office or the tyranny in the man who is in office that is resisted (Rutherford refers to this abuse of power as "the king in concreto"). Thus, Rutherford explains:

We must needs be subject to the royal office for conscience, by reason of the fifth commandment; but we must not needs be subject to the man who is king, if he command things unlawful. . . but Paul (Rom. xiii.) forbiddeth us to resist the power, in abstract; therefore, it must be the man, in concreto, that we must resist.73

k. It can be easily demonstrated from the various struggles of reformed Christians in resisting tyrannical rulers that they did not understand Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 (or Titus 3:1) either to refer to a tyrant as "the ordinance of God" to whom Christians must subject themselves for conscience sake, nor to forbid active resistance for conscience sake against a tyrant who happens to call himself a civil magistrate.

(1) The German princes of the Reformed Church levied war against a tyrannical emperor and concluded after mature deliberation:

Unjust violence is not God's ordinance; neither are we bound to him by any other reason than if he kept the conditions on which he was created emperor. By the laws themselves it is provided that the superior magistrate shall not infringe the right of the inferior, and if the superior magistrate exceed the limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not only [do--GLP] we need not obey him, but, if he offer force, we may resist him. 74

(2) The Reformed Church in France many times resisted the tyranny of kings as in the following example:

So in the reign of Charles IX., when all acts of pacification were broken, after many fruitless petitions, and vain promises, they take up arms, whereupon a bloody civil war ensued; and when this king, contrary to his oath, 1572, caused that massacre at Paris, the Protestants in Languedoc, Rochelle, and other parts, took up arms in their own defence. 75

(3) The Reformed Church of Geneva (under the leadership of Calvin, Beza, Viret, etc.) was actively involved in supporting (by means of finances, ministers, soldiers, arms, ammunition, and sanctuary) the resistance of the Huguenots against the popish tyrants who reigned in France.

These leaders of the French nobility were soon joined in Orleans [in March 1562-- GLP] by leaders of the French Protestant ministry, most prominent among them Beza. . . . These ecclesiastical leaders constituted a war party around Conde. They were opposed to any negotiations or military maneuvers that, in the interest of strategy or a peaceful settlement, would sacrifice Protestant congregations or their legal right to worship. Beza, as noted, had opposed the abandonment of Paris in March, and he later proposed an armed seizure of Paris. 76

Calvin, himself, did not stop at indirect pressure in fund raising for the war. In a general letter to the churches of Languedoc, he appealed specifically for money to pay for the German mercenaries whom d'Andelot was at the moment trying to recruit in Germany. . . . By no means pacifist, he accepted and supported religious war in exceedingly realistic ways.77

[T]he most important Genevan man-power contribution to the Huguenot cause was the organization of a cavalry escort under local officership to accompany a large troop of Swiss and Bernese soldiers which the Bernese government finally decided to organize, part of the way into France in July, 1562. The escort was organized at Calvin's suggestion in response to rather firm hints from Berne and certain local people that the Genevans should contribute something to the Swiss armies marching "to the Service of the Church of Lyons". . . . It is clear that Geneva contributed in material ways to the Huguenot armies in France. Though the appearance of neutrality was maintained, the government allowed and at times encouraged the sending of small groups of men, large sums of money, and substantial quantities of gunpowder to the forces fighting for the Calvinist faith. And the spiritual leaders of the city were involved in more or less positive ways in these activities. Geneva became a veritable arsenal of Calvinism.78

The ecclesiastical and political influence of Geneva continued strong for decades. In the years preceding the Thirty Years War[,] groups of Calvinist noblemen from Holland, Germany, Bohemia, and other nations, planned co-ordinated political action. The strength of Calvinism, wherever the doctrine was oppressed, seemed to find outlet in breeding social change to the actual point of social revolution. And the organizing center for many of these revolutions was unquestionably Geneva. . . . It was the prime source of ecclesiastical leaders and the outpouring of printed propaganda; it was a staging-base for conspiracies, a negotiating point for loans, and a producer and distributor of armament. 79

(4) The Reformed Church of the Netherlands united with the prince of Orange in 1572 and entered into a solemn covenant to defend religion, lives, and liberties by force of arms against the tyrannical rule of the Romish Spaniards. In a solemn protestation they declared the reasons for their resistance:

For zeal to the country, for the glory of God, because of the inhumanities and oppressions, and more than barbarous and insupportable tyranny and encroachments upon their privileges, liberties, and freedom. 80

(5) The Waldenses in Piedmont, (in 1558, 1561) having undergone much persecution from popish magistrates,

assembled together to consult how they might prevent danger; and, after long prayer and calling upon God, they concluded to enter into a solemn mutual covenant for defence of themselves and their religion, and did so with success, obtaining many notable victories against their persecutors. . . . 81

(6) The Church of Scotland resisted Charles I and counseled Parliament not to allow him back upon the throne nor allow him to exercise his royal power until he gave them the assurances they demanded of him (namely subscribing the Solemn League and Covenant):

That before his Majesties restitution to the exercise of his Royall power assurance be had from his Majesty by his solemn Oath under his hand and seal for settling Religion according to the Covenant [i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant-- GLP]. 82

12. In conclusion, it is affirmed that God requires of the Christian subjection for conscience sake to the office of civil magistracy and to those who hold the office so long as they fulfil the moral duties of a civil magistrate. This and this alone is "the ordinance of God." However, it is denied that the Christian owes conscientious subjection or honor to a tyrant who forsakes the moral duties of his office. The Christian should be thankful for the measure of freedom he may yet enjoy under a tyrant, but he cannot say that the emperor is clothed in lawful authority just because everyone says he is. The Christian must fear the Lord his God, and stand with the cloud of faithful witnesses and courageously declare, "The king has no clothes" (i.e. no lawful authority). The Christian who testifies to this truth may be falsely accused of treason, sedition, and revolutionary anarchy, but so were Christ, Paul, and Christians throughout history. If it can justly be termed "treason" to actively resist tyranny, then far better to be charged with treason against a tyrant than to be charged with treason against the Son of God for not actively resisting Christ's enemies when it is the Christian's duty to do so. The eminent Scottish divine, Samuel Rutherford, well stated the duty of the Christian who stands for the truth in the face of false allegations of treason:

Christ, the prophets, and apostles of our Lord, went to heaven with the note of traitors, seditious men, and such as turned the world upside down: calumnies [i.e. slanders--GLP] of treason to Caesar were an ingredient in Christ's cup, and therefore the author [i.e. Mr. Rutherford--GLP] is the more willing to drink of that cup that touched his lip, who is our glorious Forerunner: what, if conscience toward God, and credit with men, cannot both go to heaven with the saints, the author is satisfied with the former companion, and is willing to dismiss the other. Truth to Christ cannot be treason to Caesar. . . . 83

There is coming a day when magistracy and ministry will both fulfil their ordained duties to the glory of Christ, then the church of Jesus Christ will see the full realization of God's promise: "Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers" (Is. 49:22,23).



Endnotes

1. George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1646] 1985), p. 113.

2. George Gillespie, The Works Of George Gillespie , "One Hundred and Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church" (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books, [1642] 1991), 1:13.

3. John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, IV:XX:2 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, [1536] 1960), 2:1487.

4. Ibid. p. 1488.

5. Ibid. p. 1495.

6. John Knox, Works Of John Knox, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women" (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558] 1855), IV:399.

7. John Knox, Works Of John Knox, "Summary of the Proposed Second Blast of the Trumpet" (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558] 1855), IV:539,540.

8. George Buchanan, De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue Concerning The Rights Of The Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1579] 1982), p. 276.

9. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 4.

10. Ibid. p. 218.

11. George Gillespie, The Works Of George Gillespie , "One Hundred and Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church" (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books, [1642] 1991), 1:12.

12. David W. Hall, ed., Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici; The Divine Right Of Church Government, (Dallas,Texas: Naphtali Press [1646] 1995), pp. 79-80. Emphases added.

13. "The Confession of Saxony", The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1536] 1992), p. 487.

14. "The Confession of Faith" of Scotland, Chapter 24, The Scottish Confession Of Faith, (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, [1560] 1993), p. 42.

15. "The National Covenant," Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1638] 1983), pp. 351,352.

16 "The Solemn League And Covenant," Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1643] 1983), p. 359. Emphases added.

17. "The Confession of Faith," Chapter XXIII, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp. 101,102.

18. The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, "A seasonable and necessary Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereof", 27 July 1649, Session 27, p. 460. Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

19. John Knox, Works Of John Knox, "Summary of the Proposed Second Blast of the Trumpet" (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558] 1855), IV:539. Emphases added.

20. Ibid. p. 540. Emphases added.

21. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 7. Emphases added.

22. Ibid. p. 9. Emphases added.

23. The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, "A seasonable and necessary Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereof", 27 July 1649, Session 27, p. 460. Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

24. John Knox, "The Appellation from the Sentence Pronounced by the Bishops and Clergy: Addressed to the Nobility and Estates of Scotland", The Selected Writings Of John Knox (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications [1558] 1995), pp. 490,491. Emphases added.

25. Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558), pp. 118,119. Emphases added. The spelling in this excerpt has been edited from the original document.

26. "The Confession of Saxony", The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1536] 1992), p. 486. Emphases added.

27. "The Confession Of Faith" of Scotland, Chapter 24, The Scottish Confession Of Faith (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, [1560] 1993), pp. 41,42. Emphases added. The parenthetical qualification is in the original document, and significantly limits non-resistance to the civil magistrate so long as he is "doing that thing which appertains to his charge." Similarly, in "The Confession Of Faith" of Scotland, Chapter 14, one of the sins which displeases God and "provokes him to anger" is "to disobey or resist any that God has placed in authority (while they pass not over the bounds of their office)." Again, the parenthetical limitation is original and is intended to make clear that when the civil magistrate does pass over the lawful bounds of his office, he may be lawfully resisted.

28. "The Belgic Confession", Article 36, The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1566] 1992), p. 483. Emphases added.

29. "The Confession of Faith," Chapter XX, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp. 87. Emphases added.

30. John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, IV:XX:31 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, [1536] 1960), 2:1519. Emphases added.

31. John Calvin, "Commentaries On The Prophet Daniel", Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, [1561] 1979), Xll:382. Emphases added.

32. John Ponet, A Short Treatise Of Politic Power, And Of The True Obedience Which Subjects Owe To Kings And Other Civil Governors, With An Exhortation To All True Natural English Men (The publisher is cited as D.I.P.B.R.W.: 1556), p. 57. Emphases added. The spelling and capitalization have been edited from the original document.

33. John Knox, Works Of John Knox, "Summary of the Proposed Second Blast of the Trumpet" (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club, [1558] 1855), IV:540. Emphases added.

34. Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558), pp. 118,119. Emphases added. The spelling has been edited from the original document.

35. Ibid. p. 110. Emphases added. The spelling has been edited from the original document.

36. Ibid. p. 139. Emphases added. The spelling has been edited from the original document.

37. Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos; A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1579] 1989), p. 22. Emphases added.

38. Ibid. p. 7. Emphases added.

39. Ibid. Emphases added.

40. George Buchanan, De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue Concerning The Rights Of The Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1579] 1982), p. 261. Emphases added.

41. Henry Bullinger, "Henry Bullinger On The Duties Of Rulers And Subjects", Puritan Political Ideas 1558-1794, ed. Edmund Morgan (New York: The Bobbs-Merill Co., Inc. [1587] 1965), p. 19. Emphases added.

42. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 141. Emphases added.

43. Ibid. p. 220. Emphases added.

44. John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetical Relation Of The Particular Sufferings Of The Faithful Ministers And Professors Of The Church Of Scotland, Since August 1660, (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd [1665] 1845), p. 86. Emphases added.

45. Alexander Shields, A Hind Let Loose, (Glasgow: John Kirk, Calton [1688] 1797), p. 313. Emphases added.

46. Ibid. pp. 325-326. Emphases added.

47. Ibid. pp. 326-327. Emphases added.

48. "The First Helvetic Confession", The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1536] 1992), p. 475. Emphases added. The parenthetical qualification is in the original document and indicates that only he is a magistrate of God who does not exercise tyranny. Thus, conscientious submission to a tyrant is not solicited by this confessional statement.

49. "The Confession of Faith" of Scotland, Chapter 14, The Scottish Confession Of Faith (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, [1560] 1993), p. 25. The parenthetical limitation is in the original document and is intended to make clear that when the civil magistrate passes over the lawful bounds of his office, he is no longer acting as "the ordinance of God" and therefore is to be lawfully resisted.

50. "The Confession Of Faith" of Scotland, Chapter 24, The Scottish Confession Of Faith (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, [1560] 1993), p. 42. The parenthetical qualification is in the original document, and limits non-resistance to the civil magistrate so long as he is "doing that thing which appertains to his charge." Otherwise he must be resisted.

51. "The Belgic Confession", Article 36, The Harmony Of Protestant Confessions , Peter Hall, ed. (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1566] 1992), p. 483. Emphases added. This reformed confession states that all men ought to be subject to "lawful magistrates" and ought to obey only in matters that "are not repugnant to the word of God." It is plainly to be inferred that unlawful tyrants cannot have a Christian's subjection for conscience sake (thus they must be resisted). Thus, conscientious submission to a tyrant is not solicited by this confessional statement.

52. "The Confession of Faith", Chapter XX, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp. 87. Emphases added.

53. "The Larger Catechism," Question 99, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), p. 183. Emphases added.

54. The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, "A seasonable and necessary Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereof", 27 July 1649, Session 27, pp. 456-458. Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

55. For more information concerning the matter of covenanting, cf. Appendix C in this book, as well as The Duty And Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting produced by the Session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, available through Still Waters Revival Books.

56. The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 4 June 1644, Session 7, "The Letter from the Synod of Divines in the Kirk of England, to the General Assembly", pp. 231,232. Emphases added.

57. The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 27 July 1649, Session 27, "A seasonable and necessary Waring and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereof", p. 460. Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

58. The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 6 August 1649, Session Ultimate, "A Brotherly Exhortation from the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to their Brethren in England", pp. 474,475. Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

59. Ibid. p. 475. Emphases added. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

60 William M. Hetherington, History Of The Westminster Assembly Of Divines, (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1856] 1993), pp. 337-339. Emphases added.

61. "The Confession of Faith," Chapter XXII, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1647] 1983), pp. 96-98. Emphases added.

62. "The Larger Catechism," Question 108, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), p. 193. Emphases added.

63. Samuel Wylie, Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For Magistracy And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis (Pottstown, Pennsylvania: Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing [1803] 1995), pp. 36,37.

64. John Cunningham, The Ordinance of Covenanting, (Glasgow: William Marshall, 1843), p. 392. Emphases added.

65. Samuel Wylie, Two Sons Of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness For Magistracy And Ministry Upon A Scriptural Basis (Pottstown, Pennsylvania: Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing [1803] 1995), pp. 43,44. The italics are original, the bold has been added for emphases.

66. "The Larger Catechism," Question 190, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), p. 273. Emphases added.

67. "The Larger Catechism," Question 191, Westminster Confession of Faith (Invernes: Free Presbyterian Publications, [1648] 1983), pp. 274,275. Emphases added.

68. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 159. Emphases added.

69. Ibid. p. 232. Emphases added.

70. Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos; A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books [1579] 1989), p. 7.

71. Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. 153. Emphases added.

72. Ibid. p. 155.

73. Ibid. p. 145. The italics are in the original document.

74. John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetical Relation Of The Particular Sufferings Of The Faithful Ministers And Professors Of The Church Of Scotland, Since August 1660, (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd [1665] 1845), p. 82.

75. Ibid.

76. Robert M. Kingdom, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France 1555-1563 (Geneva: Librairie E. Droz, 1956), pp. 108,109. Emphases added.

77. Ibid. pp. 111,112. Emphasis added.

78. Ibid. pp. 117, 124. Emphasis added.

79. Ibid. pp. 128,129.

80. John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetical Relation Of The Particular Sufferings Of The Faithful Ministers And Professors Of The Church Of Scotland, Since August 1660, (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd [1665] 1845), p. 82.

81. Ibid.

82. The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 25 July 1648, Session 14, "The Assemblies Answer to the Paper sent from the Committee of Estates of the 24 July", p. 374.

83. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law And The Prince (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1644] 1982), p. xxi. Emphases added.