American Revisions and Modern Protestants
In a previous article, I explored the relationship between the original (1646) and American (1788) versions of the Westminster Confession, chapter 23, on the civil magistrate. Some readers thought that I minimized the differences between the two documents. However, it’s important to note the thesis of my essay: the two are not contradictory. Of course, the conclusion “not contradictory” does not narrow the playing field very much. Two things can be extraordinarily different and yet not contradictory. My claim was rather modest.
Perhaps readers arrived at this impression based on my conclusion:
Indeed, the continuity between the two versions forces us to face some hard questions. Does the American version contradict the original version? Or do both versions contradict our own political theology today? It seems likely that for many Protestants, the distance between them and Philadelphia is far greater than the distance between Philadelphia and Westminster Abbey.
This statement also does not minimize the differences between two versions of the Confession. For the sake of argument, suppose that the Westminster Divines and the Philadelphia Presbyterians did hold two radically divergent views of the civil magistrate. Even if this were the case, their differences could still be significantly less than the differences between both assemblies and modern Protestants today. Two things can look strikingly different when compared with each other while also appearing quite similar when compared to an even more different third thing. A panther and a house cat are different animals. The distance between them is apparent in size, behavior, and habitat. Yet, the difference between the two is less stark when both species are compared to, say, the Governor of Florida.
But do modern Protestants hold views all that different from the American version? For this exercise, I’ll lay out some of the surprising statements in the American version and allow you to arrive at your own conclusions.
Chapter 23 opens with the affirmation that God ordained civil magistrates for “the public good.” “To this end,” the Confession continues, God “hath armed them with the power of the sword.” In other words, physical coercion is the divinely ordained means God granted to magistrates for the sake of achieving the end of the public good. But what is the public good? The Confession makes it explicit in the next section: “piety, justice, and peace.” By God’s design, the magistrate must punish “evildoers” for the sake of maintaining the Christian piety of the people. Hence, when John Witherspoon wrote, “the magistrate may enact laws for the punishment of acts of profanity and impiety,” he was merely reiterating the teaching of the Confession.
What kinds of laws did the American Presbyterians have in mind? As I noted in my previous article, they approved of blasphemy laws and Sabbath laws, along with their fellow Americans. Moreover, to ensure the magistrate is properly equipped to maintain the piety of the people, they probably also approved of religious tests for office, which excluded non-Christians (and often non-Protestants), unless we are to believe that the American revision openly opposed the standards of the middle colonies, the location of their drafting and adoption.
For example, Pennsylvania’s test for state office: “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” And next door in New Jersey—Witherspoon’s residence—it was maintained that,
“No Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature.”
The Confession includes many qualifications of the power of the magistrate, which should temper concerns regarding government overreach. The way magistrates punish impiety must also promote justice and peace. It must ensure the security of the public good, not private interests.
Moreover, the magistrate’s actions must accord with “the wholesome laws of each commonwealth” (23.2). Both the Westminster Divines and the Presbyterians in Philadelphia condemned magistrates who exercise their cohesive power unjustly, chaotically, and unlawfully for their own gain. Nevertheless, the American version still affirms the God-ordained right, power, and responsibility of the magistrate to punish impiety. Do most modern Protestants agree?
Section 2 of chapter 23 goes even further. After stating the duty of magistrates to “maintain piety, justice, and peace,” the Confession says: “so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.”
Most read this statement as a simple and general affirmation of Just War Theory and a rejection of Anabaptist pacifism. But notice how the sentence opens, indicating a purpose clause: so, for that end. For what end? The end of maintaining piety, justice, and peace. Yes, you read that correctly. Both versions of the Westminster Confession affirm that the magistrate may wage war not only for the sake of justice and peace but also for the sake of maintaining piety. To put it starkly, the Confession teaches that religious wars are permissible. The Westminster Divines in London believed this principle–and so did the American Presbyterians in Philadelphia. Do most Protestants today agree?
Lest we dismiss this idea as extremist, a bit of self-reflection is in order. It is not uncommon for American Protestants today to believe that it is appropriate for the United States to engage in international conflicts for the sake of defending freedom and democracy. If a dictator takes power of a foreign nation, we often overthrow them, replacing them with alternative leadership.
Now suppose a similar situation arises but we replace “freedom and democracy” with “Christian faith and practice.” Suppose a non-Christian regime takes over a Christian nation, persecuting believers for their faith and restricting their worship. Consequently, the United States government decides to take action and liberates that Christian nation from its tyrants who suppress Christian faith. If the first scenario is not an extremist position for Christians to hold, then the second is not extremist either.
Now, I am not particularly fond of the government interfering in foreign regimes, but if anything could convince me, it would be the cause of defending the persecuted church. In fact, the idea that magistrates must protect the church is the standard position of the Reformed tradition. Calvin refers to civil magistrates as the “guardians” of the church. “The Lord has bestowed on them,” Calvin says, the “authority and power to defend the Church.” As Junius Brutus put it, “It is the duty of all kings, princes, and magistrates not only to amplify and extend the limits and bounds of the church but also to preserve and defend it against all men whatsoever.” In 23.3, the American Presbyterians affirmed this principle explicitly. “As nursing fathers,” the Confession states, “it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord.”
We find more striking statements in the Larger Catechism. Take, for example, its exposition of the Fifth Commandment. First, the Catechism notes that, when this commandment refers to “father and mother,” it means not merely our natural parents but all of our superiors, “especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth” (Q&A 124). In explicating the duties of our superiors, the Catechism says that they must provide “all things necessary for soul and body” (Q&A 129). Yes, you read that correctly as well. Our superiors in the commonwealth–that is, civil magistrates–must provide all things necessary for our souls.
To unpack this statement, we must remember that both versions of the Confession deny the right of the magistrate to “assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Q&A 23.3). In other words, the magistrate has no authority in sacred things (in sacra). Instead, the Larger Catechism is affirming that the magistrate has authority around sacred things (circa sacra). The magistrate cannot run the church, but he must create conditions within society for the church to flourish. “Governments are the guest chambers of the church,” says Francis Turretin, “therefore the magistrate ought to see that it is well with her.” Hence, when we pray, “Thy kingdom come,” the Larger Catechism says that we’re praying for the church to be “countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” (Q&A 191).
One may wonder whether American Presbyterians did not notice these sections of the Larger Catechism and, consequently, left them unchanged by accident. However, this suggestion is highly improbable. They were likely not only aware of these sections but believed them wholeheartedly. In fact, on these points, the Larger Catechism expresses views quite common among Americans during the 1780s. Take, for example, the state constitution of Massachusetts (1780), which states:
As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
The early Americans saw the necessity of piety, religion, and morality. As a result, they often made provision for Protestant churches to be countenanced and maintained. Joseph Story (1779–1845), the Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison, summarized the position of the early Americans quite well. In his commentary on the First Amendment, he states that “piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the wellbeing of the state.” In fact, they are “indispensable to the administration of civil justice” and no “civilized society can well exist without them.” Moreover, “It is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects.” Hence, although the above statements from the Larger Catechism may seem strange to us, there is nothing odd about them within the context of either 1646 London or 1788 Philadelphia.
In sum, we find a number of surprising statements in the American version of the Westminster Standards. God has given the magistrate the sword so that he might inflict civil punishments, and even go to war, for the sake of maintaining piety among the people. The magistrate must countenance the church, defend the church, and maintain the church, providing all things necessary for the souls of their people. These were beliefs held in common by both the Westminster Divines and the American Presbyterians. But what do modern Protestants think of them now? If we answer this question honestly, then it reveals the real issue under contention: not how much the American Presbyterians differed from the Westminster Divines, but rather how much modern Protestant differ from both.
Image: Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Ferdinand Richards (1858-1863). Wikimedia Commons.
