Click Here to configure this menu.

A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE UNFOUNDED CHARGES OF ANABAPTISM by Greg Price

A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE UNFOUNDED CHARGES OF ANABAPTISM

by Greg Price

 

When theological and historical knowledge sinks so low that those
who walk in the good old paths of their covenanted forefathers of the First
and Second Reformations are smeared with the names of heresies their
forefathers vigorously attacked (which is simply a contemporary case of
historical revisionism), it becomes necessary to answer such unfounded
allegations for the sake of the truth as found in holy Scripture. It seems
as though it has become a popular way of debating in some “reformed”
circles to accuse a person or church of being “anabaptistic” (of course,
without supplying any historical evidence that would tie the heretical
views of the Anabaptists to faithful descendants of the reformers). All to
often, such *ad hominem * arguments focus upon the unlawful separatism
and perfectionism practiced by the Anabaptists (for which the Anabaptists
and all walking in their paths should rightly be condemned). However, we
must not stoop to the tactics of the world who falsely label a person or
church “racist” and “homophobic” simply because they condemn
affirmative action and sodomy. Neither should a person or church be
falsely labeled “anabaptistic” simply because they condemn ecclesiastical
toleration of false doctrine, unauthorized public worship, and unbiblical
church government. The warning of Calvin alerts us to the danger of such
misapplied labels:

Thus, the wickedness of many is still the reason why the Church is
troubled by divisions, and why contentions are kindled. *Yet those who
disturb the peace, throw the blame on us, and call us Schismatics*; for the
principal charge which the Papists bring against us is, that our doctrine has
shaken the tranquility of the Church. Yet the truth is, that, if they would
yield submissively to Christ, and give their support to the truth, all the
commotions would immediately be allayed. But when they utter murmurs
and compaints against Christ, and will not allow us to be at rest on any
other condition than that the truth of God shall be extinguished, and that
Christ shall be banished from his kingdom, they have no right to accuse us
of the crime of schism; for it is on themselves, as every person sees, that
this crime ought to be charged. We ought to be deeply grieved that the
Church is torn by divisions arising among those who profess the same
religion; but it is better that there are some who separate themselves from
the wicked, to be united to Christ their Head, than that all should be of one
mind in despising God. *Consequently, when schisms arise, we ought to
inquire who they are that revolt from God and from his pure doctrine*.1

Thus, let us clearly distinguish between the heresy of the Anabaptists
and the orthodoxy of the Reformers (and those who own the biblical truths
for which the reformers stood), and thus shun the sin of calling evil good
and good evil:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter! (Is. 5:20).

Anabaptism is indeed rampant throughout the ecclesiastical
landscape of the present era. Like a cancer, anabaptism has infected the
modern church (including many churches that profess to be reformed), and
its malignancy continues to spread. But unless we can accurately diagnose
this heresy in its various forms, we will not be able to destroy it by
means of the Spirit and the truth. To the end that this ancient heresy
might be exposed and removed from the Church of Christ, the following
contrasts between the positions of the Anabaptist and Reformed churches
are made. Anabaptism has generally shunned confessional formulations
(one exemption to this general rule however is the _The Schleitheim
Confession_, also known as_The Seven Articles _ of 1527):

They [i.e. the anabaptistic Brethren movement-GLP] emphasized believer’s
baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) and *shunned creeds and
“statements of faith”* due to the possibility of over-emphasizing some
teachings or beliefs, and minimizing or ignoring others. *They took the
entire New Testament as their creed*.2

Thus, it is not always a simple task to identify the “distinctive” beliefs and
practices of the Anabaptists, for they were far from a monolithic system.
In fact, the Anabaptists at times differed as much amongst themselves as
they did with those who were within the Reformed Church (a covenanted
uniformity in doctrine, worship, and government was not one of the
distinctives of anabaptism, though it was a distinctive of the Reformed
Church particularly of the Second Reformation). Although all of the
positions cited below may not be representative of every anabaptist
church, nevertheless, there has been made a serious attempt to catalogue
some of the prominent errors embraced by various historical
representatives of Anabaptism.

 

1. The Incarnation

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Though Christ was fully God, he lacked a true
human body (i.e. a human body that was derived from the Virgin Mary).
Christ’s body was no different than that of angelic appearances in the
flesh.

He is called, they [the Anabaptists-GLP] say, the “Son of David,” not
because He has taken anything from the Virgin Mary or was made man
from her substance, but only because she carried Him in her body, *as
water passes through a tube*.3

This same woman [i.e. the Virgin Mary-GLP] conceived in her womb the
afore-mentioned seed [i.e. Christ-GLP], which is God’s Word, *not from her
body nor of her body*, but of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through
faith. . . . The Word [i.e. Christ-GLP]. . . was not Abraham’s natural
flesh and blood. . . . For Christ Jesus, as to His origin, is no earthly
man, that is, a fruit of the flesh and blood of Adam.4

(2) This is simply the ancient heresy of the
Valentinians who denied that Christ’s human nature was derived from the
virgin Mary.

As the divinity of Christ was attacked by the fury of various heresies, so
Satan has raised up many enemies against his humanity. . . . The
Valentinians held that indeed he had a body, but one sent sent from
heaven, not one received from the virgin. They also believed that the
body of the virgin was like a channel through which the body of Christ
passed. . . . Treading in the footsteps of all these, *the modern Anabaptists
deny that Christ took flesh and blood from the substance of the blessed
virgin*.5

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) It was absolutely essential that Christ should
receive a real body and a reasonable soul in order to become a mediator
between God and man who could redeem us from the fall of the first
Adam.

Furthermore, *the matter was necessary for our redemption*: that the
disobedience which was committed in our nature might also be repaired in
the same. For this reason our Lord Jesus became *true man*, presenting
Himself as in the person of Adam, whose name He also assumed (Rom.
5:14; 1 Cor. 15:47), in order to pay the price of sin *in the flesh in which it
was committed*.6

Q.37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself *a true body*,
and a reasonable [i.e. rational-GLP] soul, being conceived by the power of
the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, *of her substance*, and
born of her, yet without sin.7

Q.39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might
advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make
intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;
that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access
with boldness unto the throne of grace.8

 

2. Salvation

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Divine election is conditioned upon the foresight
of God in knowing all those who would first choose to believe in Him.

For with the Pelagians and Papists, *ye [Anabaptists-GLP] are become
teachers of free will*, and defenders of your own justice.9

(2) Salvation or corresponding punishment are only for
sins personally committed rather than for original sin imputed and
inherited from Adam.

They [i.e. Anabaptists-GLP] deny that the posterity are
guilty on account of the fall of their first parents.10

(3) Good works are necessary to justification . Schaff
notes that the Anabaptists rejected Luther’s theory of forensic, solifidian
[by faith alone-GLP] justification.11

Balthasar Hubmaier, one of the early pillars of Anabaptism, articulated
this subjective view of salvation when he represented God as stating, Man,
help yourself, and then I will help you.12

(4) True believers may finally fall from grace and true faith.

The question concerning perseverance is agitated by us with old and new
Pelagians and Semipelagians, who agree in opposing and denying it. Such
are the Romanists, Socinians, *Anabaptists* and Remonstrants, *who, on
this point (as in the others concerning grace), depart from the orthodox
doctrine and were condemned by the Synod of Dort in Article 5* (Acta
Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1619-20], 1:311-17).13

(5) These errors are rampant in Arminianism (which
promotes a thoroughly man-centered salvation).

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) Divine election is not conditioned upon forseen
faith in man or any merit found in man, but rests entirely in the freedom
of God’s sovereign will.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen
in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love,
*without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of
them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving
him thereunto*; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.14

(2) Justification is an objective, judicial act of God
whereby He forgives all those who believe in Christ and declares the
believing sinner righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ alone.
Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins,
and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, *only for the righteousness of
Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone*.15

 

3. The Scriptures

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Though the Old Testament is of divine inspiration,
it was given only to the Israelite nation as a rule. It is the New
Testament alone that is the rule for the Christian, for only the New
Testament manifests the perfection of Christ.

[T]hey rejected the Old Testament as equal with the New Testament
*as a basis for faith and practice*.16

This question [concerning the authority of the Old Testament-GLP] brings
us into collision with Anabaptists who reject the books of the Old
Testament from the canon of faith, as if they had not the least reference to
Christians and as if they should not draw from them doctrines of faith and
rules of life. *The Mennonites in their Confession (Article 11) teach that
“all Christians, in matters of faith, ought to have recourse necessarily
only to the gospel of Christ . . . .*”17

The second question treats of the morality of the Sabbath-whether the
fourth commandment, sanctioning the sanctification of the Sabbath, is
moral and perpetual; or only ceremonial and constituted for a certain time
. . . . The second [view-GLP] asserts that it is merely ceremonial and so
entirely abrogated by Christ. *This was the opinion of the ancient
Manichaeans and of the Anabaptists and Socinians of the present day (who
hold that it was so abrogated as to pertain in no way to Christians)*.18

According to Anabaptists,

*The Old Testament was given to the Jews alone and had no authority
for Christians*. The Old was therefore especially inferior to the New,
because the hope of everlasting life was lacking.19

(2) This error has been (in substance) propounded by
modern day dispensationalists.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) All of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) is
inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). The moral
law found in the Old Testament binds the consciences of all men, even as
that same moral law does that is revealed in the New Testament.

*The Old Testament in Hebrew*, (which was the native language of the
people of God of old,) *and the New Testament in Greek*, (which at the
time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being
immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept
pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; *so as in all controversies of
religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them*.20

There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, *but
one and the same [covenant of grace-GLP] under various dispensations [i.e.
Old Covenant and New Covenant-GLP]*.21

 

4. The Church
a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Only those who profess faith in Christ and have
reached a demonstrable level of sanctification are eligible to become
members of the Visible Church. Thus, the Visible Church is a body
composed of a regenerate membership.

Its [Anabaptism’s-GLP] characteristics were. . . a “pure” church
*consisting of the “truly” converted* who desire a “holy community”
separated from the world.22

Although we think true believers alone are [truly-GLP] members of the
church, we do not on this account favor the error of the Novatians,
Catharists and Donatists, or of the modern Anabaptists (which the
Romanists calumniously charge us with doing), *who hold that the church
consists of those who are perfectly sanctified*. For besides the fact that in
theexternal communion hypocrites are mixed with true believers, the elect
(who alone formally belong to the mystical body of Christ as long as they
live on earth) are always exposed to various stains and sins (1 Jn.1:8); as
the moon never shines in such a way as to be without various spots.23

(2) There is no formal connection between separate
congregations. Thus, there is no church court higher than the independent
congregation to whom the congregation must submit.

(3) This humanly instituted form of church membership
and church government may be observed in various independent and
congregational churches.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) The visible church consists of all those who
profess (in the judgment of charity) the true religion together with their
children. Within the membership of the visible church are both regenerate
and unregenerate. God addeth such as should be saved to the visible
Church by baptism, because the adjoining to a visible Church is a way to
salvation, *but it followeth not that all whom God addeth to the visible
Church are saved ones*, for then the visible Church should consist only of
believers, which only Anabaptists teach.24

(2) There ought to be a formal constitutional connection
between individual congregations, and higher ecclesiastical courts to which
individual congregations must submit in the Lord.

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed
by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical
[presbyterial-GLP], and synodical . . . . *It is lawful, and agreeable to
the word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational,
classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the
church*.25

And it is so obligatory to all persons, states and degrees, that none ought
to be exempted from that Church-government which is jure divino [by
divine right-GLP], nor to be *tolerated* in another Church-government,
which is but jure humano [by human right-GLP]; nor ought any Christian
to seek after, or content himself with any such Exemption or
*Toleration*.26

For in so doing, inventions of men are [would be] preferred before the
ordinances of God; our own wisdom, will, authority [would be]
before the wisdom, will, [and-GLP] authority of Christ. . . . *That the
Law of God holds forth a subordination of a particular Church to greater
Assemblies, consisting of several choice members, taken out of several
single Congregations, which Assemblies have authoritative power and
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over that particular Church by way of
sentencing in and deciding of Ecclesiastical causes*.27

 

5. Worship

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Baptism (according to Anabaptists) should only be
administered to those who sincerely profess their faith in Chirst and give
evidence of genuine repentance. Since infants can neither believe in
Chirst nor repent of sin, they cannot receive Christian baptism.

*Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and
amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away
by Christ*, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected
with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of
us and demand it for themselves. *This excludes all infant baptism, the
highest and chief abomination of the Pope*.28

This is simply the unbiblical view of Baptists today who exclude the
children of believers from the blessings of the covenant.

(2) Furthermore, Anabaptists composed some of the earliest
Protestant [uninspired-GLP] hymns in the German language. . . . They
dwell on the inner life of the Christian, the mysteries of regeneration,
sanctification, and personal union with Christ.29

In composing uninspired hymns to be used in worship (contrary to the
universal practice of the Reformed Churches), the Anabaptists find
expression in most twentieth century churches (regardless of
denominational label) who have departed from the Regulative Principle of
Worship.
b. The view of the Reformers

(1) Baptism is rightly administered to all who profess
faith in Christ and to the infant children of one or both believing
parents.

Q.95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible
church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; *but
the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be
baptized*.30

*[T]hose infants who derive their origin from Christians*, as they have
been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant, and are accepted
by God, are thus to be received into baptism.31

(2) The spiritual descendants of Calvin and the Westminster
Assembly have steadfastly maintained that God is only to be worshipped
according to His own revealed will. This is known as the Regulative
Principle of Worship and is simply an articulation of the Second
Commandment.

So let us hold to this rule, that all human inventions which are set up to
corrupt the simple purity of the word of God, and to undo the worship
which he demands and approves, are true sacrileges, *in which the
Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God*, and trampling
his honour underfoot.32

Now, if you will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith, and do
please God, *you must prove that God in expressed words has commanded
them*; or else you shall never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet
that they please God; but they are sin, and do displease him, according to
the words of the apostle, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”33

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by
himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be
worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the
suggestions of Satan, under any visble representation, *or any other way
not prescribed in the holy Scripture*.34

*But what Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy of
God, unless he has received them from Himself [i.e. from God-GLP]*.
Therefore, after we have sought on every side, searching here and there,
we shall find no songs better and more suitable for our purpose than the
Psalms of David, dictated to him and made for him by the Holy Spirit. . . .
it should accustom itself hereafter to sing *these divine and heavenly
songs* with good King David.35

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and
conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with
understanding, faith, and reverence; *singing of psalms with grace in the
heart*; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the
sacraments instituted by Christ; *are all parts of the ordinary worship of
God*.36

*It is the duty of Christians* to praise God publicly, *by singing of
psalms* together in the congregation.37

With one word, we judge this and other novelties, in these carefree
days a useless hindrance. This we also say of the introduction of new
hymn-books, and present day ditties, which we do not find in God’s Word;
as also the playing and peeping of organs in the Church. The former are all
against the decrees of our Synods. See about singing in the Church, the
National Synod of Dordt held in 1578, art. 76; the National Synod held in
Middleburg, 1581, art. 51; the National Synod held in the Hague, 1586, art.
62; *at which gatherings hymns not found in Scripture are expressly
forbidden*.38

*It is known from Church history, that those who are after
novelties, by introducing man-made hymns and errors, have corrupted the
Congregation*. . . . The statement made by the Synod of Dordt, 1574, art.
50, needs our special attention; where we read, “*Concerning the use of
Organs in the Congregation, we hold that according to 1 Cor. 14:19, it
should not have a place in the Church*. . .” To know the reason why Organs
should be kept out of the church, read our learned theologians and their
polemics about Organs against the Lutherans and Papists.39

 

6. Separation

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) It is warranted and justified to separate from a
church due to the toleration of moral corruption within the life of members
of the church. Where scanalous sin is evident in the life of professing
members of a church, such a church is not perfected in Christ and cannot
be a true church. Like the Novatians and the Donatists of old who would
not allow repentant sinners back into the fellowship of the church until
they had manifested years of fruitful repentance, so the Anabaptists
required a pure membership in the visible church. From this we should
learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot
be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. *By
this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services*.40

The debate is over this: they [the Anabaptists-GLP] think
that wherever this order [i.e. the ban or excommunication- GLP] is not
properly constituted, or not duly exercised, no church exists, and it is
unlawful for a Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper there. *Thus they
separate themselves from the churches in which the doctrine of God is
purely preached, taking this pretext: that they do not care to participate in
the pollution committed therein, because those who ought to be
excommunicated have not been banished*.41

(2) This is the error practiced by true schismatics and
sectarians.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) It is warranted and justified to separate from a
church due to an habitual and notable defection from the truth in
doctrine, worship, or government. However, separation is not justified
merely on the grounds that a church tolerates sin in the members of its
congregation.

This is undoubtedly a warning highly necessary, in order that when the
temple of God happens to be tainted by many impurities, we may not
contract such disgust and chagrin as will make us withdraw from
it. *By impurities I understand the vices of a corrupt and polluted life.
Provided religion continue pure as to doctrine and worship, we must not
be so much stumbled at the faults and sins which men commit, as on that
account to rend the unity of the Church*. Yet the experience of all ages
teaches us how dangerous a temptation it is when we behold the Church of
God, which ought to be free from all polluting stains, and to shine in
uncorrupted purity, cherishing in her bosom many ungodly hypocrites, or
wicked persons. From this the Catharists, Novatians, and Donatists, took
occasion in former times to separate themselves from the fellowship of the
godly. *The Anabaptists, at the present day, renew the same schisms,
because it does not seem to them that a church in which vices are tolerated
can be a true church*. But Christ, in Matth. xxv.32, justly claims it as his
own peculiar office to separate the sheep from the goats; and thereby
admonishes us, that we must bear with the evils which it is not in our
power to correct, until all things become ripe, and the proper season of
purging the Church arrive.42

When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from
the Truth, the lesser part remaining sound, *the greatest part is the
Church of Separatists*.43

*The blame of Schism must not be upon those who forsake such as have
forsaken Christ, and the ancient Faith, but upon those who have thus
forsaken Christ, and his Truths*: Yea farther, if they impose that which
is not necessary, (tho’ in itself not sinful) and will not bear with the
Weaknesses of such as think it to be evil; *if, upon that, they be forced
to withdraw, in this the Governors are the Schismatics, because the Rent is
in them*.44

 

7. Perfectionism

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Christians are saints, and as those who are holy,
they are not to have any contact with those who are polluted and
corrupted with sin. Christians should withdraw from the corruption in this
world and live in their own communal societies.

A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which
the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that *we shall not
have fellowship with them*.45

Once the Novatians stirred up the churches with this teaching, but our own
age has certain Anabaptists (not very different from Novatianists) who are
lapsing into the same madness. *For they feign that in baptism God’s
people are reborn into a pure and angelic life, unsullied by any carnal
filth*.46

The same question [concerning perfectionism-GLP] was renewed in this
century by the Neopelagians, Romanists, Socinians and *Anabaptists*, who,
to pave the way for the merits of works, *maintained that the law can be
perfectly fulfilled by the renewed*.47

(2) This is the dangerous error of Wesley and Finney
who taught that Christians can (through a second work of grace) reach a
perfect state of entire sanctification in this life.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) Christians are saints by calling and are being
conformed by the power of the Word and Spirit into the image of Christ.
However, sanctification is gradual in this life, and the remnants of sin
remain within every Christian. Although the Christian cannot remove
himself entirely from sin and sinners in this life, yet he is not to
consent (in thought, word, or deed) to the sin around him. Furthermore,
establishing and guarding purity in doctrine, worship, and government as a
part of a church’s true constitution is not perfectionism, but simply
faithfulness to Christ.

This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this
life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part.48

No man that takes due care of his salvation, can join himself to it [i.e.
to a church-GLP], when the fundamentals of religious worship are
corrupted or overthrown, *it is absolutely unlawful to join unto, or abide in
any [such-GLP] Church*.49

However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the
church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among
them. *Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful
constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the
sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of
doctrine*. . . . To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the
Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however
woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the
church remain-especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the
devil’s wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand,
because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay
particular regard in this discourse, I say that everyone of their
congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church.50
8. Civil Government

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Civil government is outside the realm of Christ’s
kingdom and, and thus no Christian should serve in a civil capacity. War,
capital punishment, judicial retribution, nor self-defence have any place
in the life of a Christian.

Therefore, there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian,
*devilish weapons of force*-such as sword, armor and the like, and all
their use (either) for friends or against one’s enemies-by virtue of the
Word of Christ. Resist not (him that is) evil.51

Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is
as follows: *They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view
it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus, shall we do as He did*, and
follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness.52

(2) The civil magistrate should not establish by law
the Reformed Church (or any other church) nor a reformed and
presbyterian creed (or any other creed) as the official church and creed
within a nation. Rather a civil government should establish a position of
liberty of conscience with regard to all religions.

From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our
God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun
and flee from. *By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and
church services, meetings and church attendance*, drinking houses, civic
affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which are
highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to
the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is
in the world.53

Wherefore we condemn *the Anabaptists*, and all those troublesome
spirits, *which do reject higher powers and magistrates, overthrow all laws
and judgments*, make all goods common, and, to conclude, do abolish and
confound all those orders and degrees, which God hath appointed among
men for honesty’s sake.54

Gillespie provides a very helpful summary of the three major positions
concerning established religion and liberty of conscience. *The Papists*
believed that the civil magistrate should put all heretics to death (and
promoted the use of many abominable means of torture in order to compel
confessions and recantations) without making any distinction amongst the
various degrees or obstinacy of heresy. *The Anabaptists* believed that
the civil magistrate should tolerate all religions, even legally protecting
the free exercise of false religions (this is the position endorsed by not
only evangelicals today, but also the position propounded by Reformed
Churches as well). *The Reformed Churches* offered a mediating position
wherein the civil magistrate should legally establish the one true Reformed
Religion, protecting and defending it from all heresy, schism, and false
worship. Although not tolerating false religions, the magistrate,
nevertheless, should make distinctions amongst heresies as to the degree
of seriousness and as to the degree of obstinacy in the heretic (i.e. all
heretics should not be punished to the same extent).

*The first opinion is that of the Papists*, who hold it to be not only no
sin, but good service to God, to extirpate [i.e. uproot-GLP] by fire and
sword, all that are adversaries to, or opposers of the Church and the
Catholic religion. . . that all heretics without distinction are to be put
to death.55

*The second opinion [which represents the position of the Anabaptists,
Independents, and other sectaries-GLP]* falls short, as far as the former
exceeds: that is, that the Magistrate ought not to inflict any punishment,
nor put forth any coercive power upon heretics or sectaries, but on the
contrary grant them liberty and toleration.56

*The third opinion [which represents the position of the Reformed
Churches-GLP]* is that the Magistrate may and ought to exercise his
coercive power, in suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries, *less
or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schism,
obstinacy, and danger of seducing others, requires*. . . . And lest it be
thought that this is but the opinion of some few, that the magistrate ought
thus by a strong hand, and by civil punishments suppress heretics and
sectaries: let it be observed what is held forth and
professed concerning this business, by the Reformed Churches in their
public confessions of faith. *In the latter Confession of Helvetia
(cap.30)*, it is said that the magistrate ought to “root out lies and all
superstition, with all impiety and idolatry.” And after, “Let him suppress
stubborn heretics.” *In the French Confession (art.39)*, “Therefore he
hath also delivered the sword into the hands of Magistrates, to wit, that
offenses may be repressed, not only those which are committed against the
second table, but also against the first.” *In the Belgic Confession
(art.36)*, “Therefore hath he armed the Magistrate with the sword for
punishing them that do evil, and for defending such as do well. Moreover
it is their duty not only to be careful and watchful for the preservation
of the civil government, but also to defend the holy ministry, and to
abolish and overthrow all idolatry, and counterfeit worship of God.”
*Beza* (De Hareticis), tells us in the beginning, that *the ministers of
Helvetia* had declared themselves to be of the same judgment, in a book
published of that argument. And toward the end he cites *the Saxon
Confession, Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus, Wolfgangus Capito, and
Bullinger. The Synod of Dordt (ses.138)*, in their sentence against the
Remonstrants does not only interdict them of all their ecclesiastical and
academical functions, but [does] also beseech the States General [of the
Netherlands-GLP] by their secular power to suppress and restrain them.57

(3) Herein we find the ever popular heresy of religious
pluralism (or religious toleration) which legally protects (and therefore
promotes) all false religion (contrary to the First Table Commandments),
thus subverting the true Reformed religion, the truth of Christ, and the
unity of faith.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) Civil government is an ordinance of God established
for God’s glory and and the welfare of man. To that end God has entrusted
into the hands of the *lawful* magistrate the sword. It is lawful for
Christians to serve as magistrates in a *lawful* government in order to
exercise capital punishment, just wars and judicial recompense to the
guilty.58 It is also lawful for a Christian to exercise self-defence after all
other options to preserve one’s life have been exhausted.

*We condemn the Anabaptists*, who, as they deny that a Christian man
should bear the office of a magistrate, so also they deny that any man can
justly be put to death by the magistrate, or that the magistrate may make
war, or that oaths should be performed to the magistrate, and such like
things.59

We do clearly protest, that, together with all other doctrines which are
directly contrary to the sound and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, we do not
only not receive, *but, as abominations and blasphemies*, reject and
condemn those strange and erroneous doctrines, which the spirits of
hurlyburly [i.e. commotion-GLP] among other damnable opinions do bring
forth, *saying, &c. that magistrates cannot be Christians*. And, in the
margin:-*The magistrate doth then shew himself to be a good magistrate,
when he is a true Christian*.60

(2) A Christian may even serve and hold civil office in
an unlawful government provided no sinful act is required in order to hold
office, such as an oath of allegiance to an immoral constitution.

It is, I grant, often God’s decree revealed by the event, that a conqueror
be on the throne, but this will [i.e. God’s providential will-GLP] is not
our rule, *and the people are to swear no oath of allegiance contrary to
God’s Voluntas signi, which is his revealed will in his word regulating
us*.61

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
[by means of consitutionally protecting false religions-GLP], &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, i.e. in the original Larger Catechism of 1648-GLP].62

The friends of truth cannot justifiably persevere in supporting the British
Constitution as the ordinance ofGod. . . . 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 lead to 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.63
(3) It is the duty of civil magistrates to suppress all
false religion and to establish the true reformed religion (in doctrine,
worship, and government) by law within his realm.

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.64

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.65

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.66

All pious fatherlanders rejoiced when the States General [of the
Netherlands-GLP] in the great Assembly of 1651 declared, “*That each in
his own province must keep and maintain the Reformed religion*, as it is
presently preached and taught publicly in our Churches, as was established
by the National Synod held at Dordt in 1619.” They also decided that “*the
before mentioned religion*, by the provinces, as well as by the States
General in the provinces under their jurisdiction, *shall be maintained with
the law of the land, without allowing anyone ever to make any changes*.”
Synod of Dordt, Article 1 and 2.67

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving,
observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and
ordinances as God hath instituted in his word. . . *as also the
disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to
each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry*.
. . .68

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,
counselling, commanding, using, *and any wise approving, any religious
worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion*. . ..69

 

9. Oaths

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) All oaths (personal, ecclesiastical, and civil) are
forbidden to the Christian, because his own word is sufficient to bind him
to his duty.

The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or making
promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God’s Name, but
only in truth, not falsely. *Christ, who teaches the perfection of the
Law, prohibits all swearing to His (followers), whether true or false*.70

(2) Anabaptism denies a biblical warrant for personal and
social covenanting in this age, thereby denying the perpetual obligation of

personal, ecclesiastical, or national covenanting.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) Covenanting (whether personal, ecclesiastical, or national)
is a moral duty binding all men under the New Covenant even as it did
under the Old Covenant. Oaths required on certain solemn occasions are
lawful provided that the matter of the oath is agreeable to the Word of
God and is able to be performed.

Calvin’s first objective was to obtain, at a meeting attended by the whole
city, *an oath forcing the entire population to abjure the papacy and
adhere to the Christian religion and its discipline, as comprehended under
a few headings*.71

*Register of the Council of 24* *12 November 1537*. It was reported that
yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation
were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did
not do so. No one came from the German quarter. *It was decided that
they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear
to the reformation*.72

*26 November 1537*. Some people have been reported to have said that it
was perjury to swear to a confession which had been dictated to them in
writing . . . [Farel or Calvin] replied that if the contents of the written
confession were studied carefully it would be seen that this was not so, but
that it was a confession made according to God. Examples from holy
Scripture (in Nehemia and Jeremiah) proved that the people should
all be assembled to swear to keep faith with God and observe his
commandments.73

*To swear to the true religion, the defence and maintenance thereof is a
lawful oath*; as to swear to any thing that is lawful, and to lay a new band
on our souls to perform holy duties, where we fear a breach, and find by
experience there hath been a breach, is also *a duty of moral and
perpetual equity*; therefore such a sworn covenant is lawful.74

(2) The Westminster Assembly, the Church of Scotland, and
the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland (and “*all his Majesties
dominions*”) swore the Solemn League and Covenant on behalf of not only
their living posterity, but also on behalf of all their national, ecclesiastical
and individual posterity who would follow them.75

We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of
the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England,
and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King, and being of
one reformed religion. . . *after mature deliberation, resolved and
determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant,
wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands
lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear*. . . we shall each one of us,
according to our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain
conjoined in a firm peace and union *to all posterity* . . . .76

Note who the “all posterity” (as mentioned in the Solemn League and
Covenant) includes by the language of the Westminster divines in their
letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1644):

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 [Ireland is not formally omitted here, but is
omitted only because this English Assembly is addressing the Scottish
General Assembly-GLP], for Uniformity *in all his Majesties Dominions*.77

Not only did the Westminster Assembly understand the posterity bound
by the Solemn League and Covenant to be “all his majesties dominions”,
but the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland also officially declared
the same to be true in their letter (1648) to Charles I:

As we do not oppse the restitution of your Majestie to the exercise of your
Royall Power; So we must needs desire that that which is GODS be given
unto Him in the first place, and that Religion may be secured before the
setling of any humane interest; Being confident that this way is not only
most for the Honour of GOD, but also for your Majesties Honor and Safety.
And therefore as it was one of our Desires to the High and Honourable
Court of Parliament that they would solicte your Majestie for securing of
Religion, *and establishing the Solemn League and Covenant in all your
Dominions* [the Solemn League and Covenant having been sworn and
made law by the Parliaments of England and Scotland, it was required that
Charles I swear to establish it and to enforce it in all his dominions before
he would be allowed to return to his throne and to exercise his royal
authority-GLP].78

Is it possible to know which nations were bound as posterity by the
Solemn League and Covenant (1643) and included in “all his majesties
dominions?” Clearly, it was all the subjects and the dominions under the
Crown of Great Britain (including the United States and Canada both of
which were then designated as “the dominions in America”).

*The first colonial Charter* issued by the English crown (1606) was for the
settlement of Jamestown in Virginia. Here it is noted that the colony of
Virginia is declared to be one of the kings “Dominions” as much as any
other royal dominion, and its members are considered by James I to have
the same rights as those living in the “Realm of England.” It provided that
all . . . Persons, being our Subjects [i.e. subjects of the Crown of
England-GLP], which shall dwell and inhabit within . . . any of the said
Colonies and Plantations, and every [one] of their children, which shall
happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said
several Colonies and Plantations, shall Have and enjoy all Liberties,
Franchises, and Immunities, *within any of our other Dominions*, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our
Realm of England, *or any other of our said Dominions* . . . .79

In 1663, Charles II granted a charter to eight English gentlemen who had
helped him regain the throne of England. The charter document contains
the following description of the territory (then designated Carolina) which
the eight Lords Proprietors were granted title to:

All that Territory or tract of ground, situate, lying, and being
within *our Dominions in America* . . . .80

In a document written by Thomas Jefferson entitled “A Summary of the
Rights of British America”, the following brief reference to an Act from
King
#

George III demonstrates that even those living in America understood
they were a dominion of his majesty.

One other act passed in the 6th year of his reign [George III-GLP],
entituled “An Act for the better securing dependency of *his majesty’s
dominions in America* upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain.81

The following excerts occur in the newspaper that Benjamin Franklin
published in Philadelphia (The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser)
wherein reference is made to colonies in what is now Canada and the
United States as being dominions of the Crown.

In considering of these questions, perhaps it may be of use to recollect;
that the colonies were planted in times when the powers of parliament
were not supposed so extensive, as they are become since the Revolution: –
– That they were planted in lands and countries where the parliament had
not then the least jurisdiction: — That, excepting *the yet infant colonies of
Georgia and Nova Scotia*, none of them were settled at the expence of any
money granted by parliament: That the people went from hence by
permission from the crown, purchased or conquered the territory, at the
expence of their own private treasure and blood: That these territories
thus became *new dominions of the crown*, settled under royal charters,
that formed their several governments and constitutions, on which the
parliament was never consulted; or had the least participation. January 6,
1766.82

The Colonies had, from their first Settlement, been governed with more
Ease, than perhaps can be equalled by any Instance in History, *of
Dominions so distant*. February, 1773.83

Whereas Anabaptist churches have not viewed themselves as being bound
by such national covenants as the Solemn League and Covenant, Reformed
churches have rightly viewed such historical covenants as obligating their
posterity even as biblical covenants bound the posterity of the fathers who
swore them. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) of the Academy of Geneva has
declared concerning such national covenants that *covenants once
sanctioned are to be kept*, as they bind the magistrate no less than the
people . . . .84

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1649) declared without
reservation that even unfaithfulness on the part of any one kingdom could
not free another covenanted kingdom from its obligation to the Solemn
League and Covenant.

Although there were none in the one Kingdome who did adhere to the
Covenant [i.e. The Solemn League and Covenant sworn by the kingdoms of
Scotland, England, and Ireland in 1643-GLP], 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.85

10. Eschatology

a. The view of Anabaptists

(1) Christ will reign bodily upon the earth for a thousand
years.

It appears that Calvin was well informed about the preference for chiliasm
[premillenialism-GLP] on the part of the Radicals [from the Anabaptist
movement-GLP]. *[C]alvin named Muntzer, Melchior Hoffman, and Storch,
all of whom were chiliasts, as leaders of the Anabaptist movement*.86

(2) “Some [Anabaptists-GLP] believed in the sleep of the
soul between death and resurrection.”87

It is renewed in this age by the milder Socinians and *Anabaptists* who,
pressing in their footsteps, presume to defend at least *a night of the
soul (viz., that souls either sleep and are without all sense or are
extinguished until the resurrection)*.88

(3) The one thousand year reign of Christ upon the earth after
His coming is the error of the premillennialists.

(4) The doctrine of soul sleep is prevalent among those cults
(e.g. Jehovah Witnesses) who deny the immortality of the soul.

b. The view of the Reformers

(1) Christ will reign from heaven over all nations for an
extended period of time. This glorious era will be evidenced by the
success of the gospel, the calling of the Jews, the uniformity of one faith
throughout the world, national covenanting (and covenant renewal), and
both civil and ecclesiastical governments working together for biblical
reformation.
*The coming of Christ to reign here on earth a thousand years is, if not a
groundless opinion, yet so dubious and uncertain* as not to be admitted a
place in the analogy of faith to regulate our interpretation of
Scripture. . . .89

(2) At death the souls of the righteous immediately ascend to
enjoy conscious rest in God, while the souls of the wicked immediately
descend to endure conscious torment in hell.

[F]aithful souls immediately after death experience some enjoyment of the
heritage that has been promised to them, but inasmuch as the glory of
Jesus Christ their king has not yet appeared and the heavenly city of God
has not yet been established in its fullness, they must wait until that day
arrives.90

The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; *but
their souls, (which neither die nor sleep,)* having an immortal
subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the
righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the
highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory,
waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked
are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness,
reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for
souls separated from their bodies, the scripture acknowledgeth none.91

The hesesy of Anabaptism lives today! It has infected the modern church
with its cancerous errors and heresies: anti-creedalism, arminianism,
dispensationalism, independency (sectarianism), anti-paedobaptism,
will-worship (anti-regulativism), perfectionism, societal escapism,
religious pluralism and tolerationism (anti-establishmentarianism), denial
of the perpetual obligation of social covenanting, pacifism, pietism,
socialism, premillennialism, and a refusal to recognize *lawful* civil
government as the ordinance of God. These unbiblical positions of the
Anabaptists were not tolerated by the Reformed Churches of the First and
Second Reformations, and neither should they be tolerated by any Church
today that claims to be Reformed or Presbyterian.

To those who would mindlessly hurl anabaptistic stones at churches
espousing the biblical principles of the Reformers (as found in the
citations above), the words of our Lord should be carefully heeded:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again (Mt. 7:1,2).

Thus, let us all remove the anabaptistic beam from our own eyes before
we seek to pull out the anabaptistic mote from our brother’s eye.
Moreover, Reformed and Presbyterian Churches must repent of their
defection into anabaptistic tendencies and affirm again the biblical views
of their reformed forefathers in the following areas: the regulative
principle of worship, biblical unity founded upon the truth, biblical
separation from all churches who are constitutionally committed to false
doctrine and worship, and covenanted uniformity in doctrine, worship, and
government (through means of a faithful covenant as exemplified in the
Solemn League and Covenant, sworn and emitted by the Westminster
Assembly in 1643).

Finally, we must be willing to buy the truth of Christ and sell it not,
even when it appears to the majority that we are too few in number to be
committed with the truth. Let us never forget that it was to the two spies
(Joshua and Caleb) and not to the ten spies that Jehovah our God entrusted
His precious truth. Remember, God warns us that we are not to follow the
majority (multitude) to do evil (Ex. 23:2).

*It is an offense to a great many people that they see almost the whole
world opposed to us*. And indeed the patrons of a bad cause do not
neglect their own advantage, using a strategem like this so as not to upset
the ignorant and weak, that it is extremely absurd that almost the whole
Christian world is disregarded, *so that the faith is to be possessed by a
few men*. But, in particular, to destroy us they defend themselves with
the sacred title of “the Church” as if with a mallet. . . . If anyone perhaps
objects that we are not excused by the example of Noah, if we separate
ourselves from that crowd which keeps the name of “the Church,” *Isaiah
[Is.8:12-GLP], when he gave orders to abandon the conspiracy of men and
follow God alone, was referring not to strangers but to those who were
at that time glorying exceedingly in the name of the people of God*.92

**********
Endnotes
**********

1. John Calvin, Commentary on John 10:19, _Calvin’s Commentaries_ (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), XVII:411. Emphases added.

2. Cited from the World Wide Web page entitled “Anabaptists.” Emphases
added.

3. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 110. Emphases
added.

4. Menno Simons, _Incarnation_ [1496-1561], cited by Benjamin Wirt
Farley, ed., _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 114,115, footnote 58. Emphases added.

5. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 2:306. Emphases
added.

6. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 114. Emphases
added.

7. _Westminster Larger Catechism_, Question 37. Emphases added.

8. Ibid., Question 39.

9. John Knox,_Works_ , V:121-122, cited by Kevin Reed, ed. in _A Warning
Against the Anabaptists_ (Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage
Publications, 1984), p. 4. Emphases added.

10. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 1:614.

11. Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_ (AP&A, no date),
VIII:38.

12. Ray Sutton, “The Baptist Failure,” _Christianianity & Civilization_,
James B. Jordan, ed. (Geneva Divinity School, 1982), p. 156.

13. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 2:593,594. Emphases
added.

14. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 3:5. Emphases added.

15. _Westminster Shorter Catechism_, Question 33. Emphases added.

16. Kenneth Ronald Davis, _Anabaptism and Aceticism_ (Scottdale,
Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1974), p. 72. Emphases added.

17. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 1:98. Emphases
added.

18. Ibid., 2:83. Emphases added.

19. Willem Balke, _Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals_ (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 310. Emphases added.

20. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 1:8. Emphases added.

21. Ibid., 7:6. Emphases added.

22. Ray Sutton, “The Baptist Failure”, _Christianity & Civilization_, James
Jordan, ed., (Geneva Divinity School, 1982), p. 152. Emphases added.

23. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 3:23. Emphases
added.

24. Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_ (London: E.
Griffin, 1644), p. 261. Emphases added.

25. _The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government_ [1645] emitted by the
Westminster Assembly. Emphases added.

26. _The Divine Right of Church-Government_ originally asserted by the
Ministers of Sion College (London: December, 1646), pp. 7,8. Emphases are
in the original text.

27. Ibid., p. 238. Emphases added.

28. Michael Sattler,_The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 1.
Emphases added.

29. Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_ (AP&A, no date),
VIII:40.

30. _Westminster Shorter Catechism_, Question 95. Emphases added.

31. John Calvin, _Institutes_, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960) IV, xvi, 24:1347. Emphases added.

32. John Calvin, “The First Sermon, On Psalm 16:4”, cited by Kevin Reed,
ed., _Come Out From Among Them-The ‘Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John
Calvin_ (Dallas, Texas: Protestant Heritage Press, forthcoming), p. 141.
Emphases added.
33. John Knox, _Works_ (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1846), I:195,196.
Emphases added.

34. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 21:1. Emphases added.

35. John Calvin, Opera, VI:171, cited by Michael Bushell, _The Songs of
Zion_ (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Crown and Covenant Publications, second
edition, 1993 [1977]), pp. 181,182. Emphases added.

36. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 21:5. Emphases added.

37. _The Directory For The Publick Worship Of God_, “Of Singing of
Psalms,” emitted by the Westminster Assembly. Emphases added.

38. Abraham Van De Velde, _The Wonders Of The Most High or Indication
of the causes, ways and means whereby the United Provinces [of the
Netherlands-GLP], against the expectation of the whole world, were
elevated in such a marvelous way from their previous oppression to such
great, awe inspiring riches and acclaim. As related by several eminent
historians, and which after the manner of the time are compiled to a
necessary and profitable use_ (c.1674, first English translation
forthcoming), p. 125. Emphases added.

39. Ibid., pp. 125,126. Emphases added.

40. Michael Sattler,_The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 4.
Emphases added.

41. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 57. Emphases
added.

42. John Calvin, “Commentary on Psalm 15:1”, _Calvin’s Commentaries_
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), IV:204. Emphases
added.

43. Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_ (London: E.
Griffin, 1644), p. 255. Emphases added.

44. Voetius, cited by James Fraser, _The Lawfulness and Duty of
Separation from Corrupt Ministers and Churches_ (Edinburgh: George
Patton, 1744), pp. xxxi,xxxii. Emphases added.

45. Michael Sattler, _The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 4.
Emphases added.

46. John Calvin, Institutes, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960), IV, i, 23:1036. Emphases added.
47. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 2:694. Emphases
added.

48. _The Westminster Confession of Faith_, 14:2.

49. John Owen, _Inquiry into the Nature and Communion of Evangelic
Churches_, p. 180, cited by Andrew Clarkson, _Plain Reasons for
Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution-Church in Scotland_ (1731),
p. 214. Emphasis added.

50. John Calvin, _Institutes_, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960), IV,II,12:1052,1053. Emphases added.

51. Michael Sattler, _The Schleitheim Confession_ [1527], Article 4.
Emphases added.

52. Ibid., Article 6. Emphases added.

53. Ibid., Article 4. Emphases added.

54. _Belgic Confession_, Article 36. Emphases added.

55. George Gillespie, _Wholesome Severity Reconciled_, cited in _An
Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature_ (Dallas, Texas: Naphtali
Press, 1991 [1645]), 5:179,180,181. Emphases added.

56. Ibid., 5:180. Emphases added.

57. Ibid., p. 181. Emphases added.

58. For a more detailed discussion of biblical civil magistracy, consider
the author’s recent book, _Biblical Civil Government Versus The Beast; &
The Basis For Civil Resistance_, also available through Still Waters
Revival Books.

59. _The Second Helvetic Confession_ [1566], Chapter 30, “Of Magistracy.”
Emphases added.

60. _The Confession of Basle_ [1532], Article 11. Emphases added.

61. Samuel Rutherford, _Lex, Rex, or The Law And The Prince_
(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982 [1644]), p. 40.
Emphases added.

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

63. John Cunningham, _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ (Glasgow: William
Marshall, 1843), p. 392. Emphases added.

64. John Calvin, _Institutes_, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press,1960), IV,XX,2:1487. Emphases added.

65. _The Scottish Confession of Faith_, Chapter 24. Emphases added.

66. George Gillespie, _Works_ (Edmonton, Alberta: Still Waters Revival
Books, 1991 [1846]), 1:12. Emphases added.

67. Abraham Van De Velde, _The Wonders Of The Most High or Indication
of
the causes, ways and means whereby the United Provinces [of the
Netherlands-GLP], against the expectation of the whole world, were
elevated in such a marvelous way from their previous oppression to such
great, awe inspiring riches and acclaim. As related by several eminent
historians, and which after the manner of the time are compiled to a
necessary and profitable use_ (c.1674, first English translation
forthcoming), p. 157. Emphases added.

68. _Westminster Larger Catechism_, Question 108. Emphases added.

69. _Westminster Larger Catechism_, Question 109. Emphases added.

70. Michael Sattler, _The Schleitheim Confession_, Article 7. Emphases
added.

71. Pamela Johnston and Bob Scribner, _The Reformation in Germany and
Switzerland_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 138.
Emphases added.

72. Ibid. Emphases added.

73. Ibid. Emphases added.

74. Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_ (London: E.
Griffin, 1644), p. 134. Emphases added.

75. For further information about the binding obligation of the Solemn
League and Covenant upon the United States and Canada, please consult
the author’s forthcoming work which is available through Still Waters
Revival Books, _Are the United States and Canada Covenant-Breaking
Nations? _

76. _The Solemn League and Covenant_ [1643-GLP]. Emphases added.

77. _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. The original spelling and punctuation have been
retained. Emphases added.

78. Ibid., August 12, 1648, Session 40, “The Humble Supplication of the
Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland unto the Kings Most Excellent
Majesty”, p. 439. The original spelling and punctuation have been
retained. Emphases added.

79. Cited by Clarence Carson, _Basic American Government_, (Wadley,
Alabama: American Textbook Committee, 1993), p. 126. Emphases added.

80. Cited on the World Wide Web page entitled, “State Library of North
Carolina,” http://HAL.DCR.STATE.NC.US/ncs1home.htm. Emphases added.

81. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/106/8. Emphases added.

82. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28. Emphases added.

83. Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28. Emphases added.

84. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T.
Dennison, Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 3:327.
Emphases added.

85. _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. The
original spelling and capitalization have been retained. Emphases added.

86. Willem Balke, _Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals_ (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 297, emphases added.

87. Philip Schaff, _History Of The Christian Church_ (AP&P), VIII:40.

88. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, James T. Dennison,
Jr., ed. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 3:327. Emphases
added.

89. John Owen,_Works_, 20:154, emphases added.

90. John Calvin, _Treatises Against the Anabaptists_, Benjamin Wirt Farley,
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 138,139,
emphases added.

91. _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 32:1, emphases added.

92. John Calvin, _Concerning Scandals_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 109,110, emphases added.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!