It's nice to be back with Bill Stanway again. I haven't seen you for a long time, not very often at least. Somehow, somebody must have picked up a yellow folder like this, and I have another one here, but unless you need it more than I do, it's nice to get it back. I'm sure it's done by accident, I might add. I want to go back and reiterate some of the things I said last night to you. I want to do it without a great conviction. I made the point last night that on Calvinism, on our historic Presbyterian position, hangs everything in the evangelical world. Even those evangelical groups who are most often opposed to the theology which we profess and love, they do not realize it. But without them, without us I should say, their whole theological world would collapse. This is recognized by the enemies of faith much more clearly by the evangelicals, fundamentals, dispensationalists, and many other groups. We are the citadel which supplies them with their theological strength and vigor. Thus, when the infidels, when the Kantians, as Dr. Packer mentioned, and the many offspring of the Kantian aim their fiery darts, or should I say today, their nuclear weapons, at the Calvinistic position. They are trying to destroy what they regard as the enemy of their liberalism. And we are their greatest opposition. We are the threat to all liberalism. Now, I say this not with boasting, but with a deep realization of what it's all about. I made the point last night that also the Lord is working in history through his church. And the covenanters, as I shall discuss on this morning, John Knox last night, and I shall pursue this theme throughout our week of study, you will find that the Lord is working in and through history, and that Presbyterianism, the covenanters, Presbyterianism in this country, all appear at vital and crucial times in history. So that secular history, Augustine's city of man, is in desperate need of the city of God, even though it attacks it. The Lord works in and through the city of man, in and through what we call secular history, or the history in common grace. as over against the history of the Church and redeeming special grace. He works in that common grace, and he raises up his Church to meet the great issues of the day, whatever those issues may be. Knox was a fiery person. I said that he appealed to the Scottish mind. He dealt with the Scottish mind as no other reformer could have. And before him, the Scottish were a rebellious, turbulent, unruly people. I'm speaking of my own ancestry, so I may do it with impunity. And maybe I'm speaking for many of you. Sam Patterson, wherever he is, says that I speak for him also. He's a Scottishman by lineage and descent. Queen Mary gave one of the most tremendous testimonies to John Knox that has ever been penned, and she said this, I would rather have an invasion of Scotland by a foreign army than the prayers of John Knox. She was, to put it in vernacular, she was scared to death of John Knox on his knees. Sometimes she was equally afraid of John Knox on his feet, but she was afraid of John Knox. And from the point of view of missions, John Knox uttered that famous prayer, maybe it's not so famous to you, I do not know, but he penned this and he gave it in a sermon, give me Scotland or I die. That is missionary passion, that is preaching passion, that is leadership passion. Give me Scotland or I die, so that you and I have a tremendous heritage from John Knox, a heritage which we should treasure and develop. Today, let me go to the Covenanters. And again, we shall see the working of the Lord in history. Now, in order to make this clear, I'm going to have to do something. I'm going to have to give a little bit of history. The Covenanters appeared at a very interesting time in English history. The name Covenanter has been applied particularly to those Scottish Presbyterians. who signed the National League and Covenant of 1638, the solemn League and Covenant of 1643, and to their successors who, in the reign of Charles I of England and Charles II of England, resisted the efforts of these monarchs to impose their Episcopal system of government on the Church of Scotland, and at the same time an absolutist regime in the Kingdom of Scotland. They had two different efforts, but they were basically one. It was characteristic of the Reformation movement in Scotland for the followers of Knox and Calvin to bind themselves together on the lordship of Jesus Christ by a solemn oath for mutual assistance and strength. There's a young scholar here from Switzerland who is doing a study at the origins of the idea of the covenant in Reformation theology, particularly on the continent. And it's a very, very interesting study which he's doing. I cannot give you all of it. I don't have the time. I haven't pursued it as he's pursued it, although I've done some work on it quite a bit. But he's pursuing it, particularly in continental reformers of the second generation. Now, as early as 1556, John Knox and his Scottish followers bound themselves together in a league. But the one to which I want to call your attention today is that of 1580, which was penned, of course, after Wilmot Knox had died eight years before. But in order to cement the Presbyterians of Scotland and their opposition to Rome, and you must remember, in 1580 Elizabeth was on the throne in England James VI of Scotland was on the throne of Scotland, and they were trying to re-establish and establish what we would call the Episcopal system of government. With all due respect to my friend, the Scottish did not want an Episcopal system of government, not because they were just opposed to the Episcopacy as such, but because in the hands of the Episcopacy in the Church was an absolute prerequisite for a sound, as I said, a sound monarchy, an absolute monarchy in the Kingdom of Scotland and of England. So in order to enforce their will on the Scots Presbyterian Church, they had to reestablish the Episcopacy as a branch of the particular and peculiar Stuart idea of the absolute monarchy. So they signed the great covenant of 1580. Now, when the Scottish people signed these covenants, I just might remind you, they didn't sit down and take a quill pen and sign it. Well, some of them did, to be sure, because they had those records. But they also often signed it in their own blood to distinguish the fact that they weren't just signing a real estate agreement. They were not just signing a temporary contract. They were signing a contract, no, a covenant with their own blood. to emphasize the fact that this was a life and a death matter. James himself, I'm speaking now of James of Scotland, was a peculiar person. I'm sure students of English history and my good friends from England will admit that he had a many-sided character and was not always easy to understand, so that he wandered from side to side, even more so to his son Charles I, of whom we shall have much more later. But in 1592, James accepted the Charter of Presbyterianism, this I'm speaking now of Scotland, which did away with the so-called Black Acts, which had been passed and which were designed to root out Presbyterianism in Scotland. He finally decided that he was anxious to gain his kingdom and so he accepted them for reasons which were simply political. In 1580 the Scottish Presbyterian General Assembly had its great covenant. Now in 1603 Elizabeth died. the famous Elizabeth of England, and James VI of Scotland, who was from the family of Henry VII, so that he was the nearest male heir to the English throne. In 1603, James became King of England upon the death of Elizabeth. He was stubborn, to put it very mildly. And he speedily came to the conclusion that Puritanism in England, Presbyterianism in England, and Presbyterianism in Scotland were his great enemy. And he was partly right, because he had come to the conclusion, and he said this, that Presbyterianism and monarchy agreeeth as do God and the devil, which was his tribute to Presbyterianism. And he had come to the conclusion that to have the absolute monarchy, which he felt he must have in Stuart, England, after 1603, he would enforce upon the Church the monarchical form of government by which he meant bishops. And so in 1610, he appointed bishops to the Church. A Presbyterian system of government was to go. You see, they had established a Presbyterian form of government through John Knox and subsequent legislation. They had the Scottish Confession of 1560. They were well on their way to being a Presbyterian church in doctrine, in worship, in discipline, and so on. And James could not allow it. Now, I would point this out to you, that actually, James was correct. in his assumption that you could not have a presbyterian system of church government in an absolute monarchy. I would grant him that point. I would agree that if you accept his basic premise, James was correct. I don't accept his basic premise. And in 1610, he appointed bishops to the Church of Scotland and it created a court of high commission. which was a type of court which Henry VII had created for England when he came into power, when he was putting down the rebellions and the upheavals which had marked the War of the Roses, and Henry VII had ruled England with a strong hand, a very strong hand, although he was very able. James I was not that able, but he also used a strong hand, particularly in England and Scotland, and so he created a court of high commission which was simply to suppress any minister. and Scotland who might oppose him, and who might oppose episcopacy, as he said. The events, of course, were a great irritation to the Scottish people. But with the coming of Charles I in 1625, the incipient rebellion broke out. Charles lacked some of James' ability. He was, to put it mildly, a peculiar person. Charles was even more determined to enforce a thescopacy upon Scotland. And you may remember he had a great, very well-known archbishop by the name of Archbishop Law, who was an Armenian. I don't mean he came from Armenia. I mean, he was Arminian. He did not agree with the doctrine of the Church of England, namely the Forty-Two Articles Act, the Thirty-Nine Articles Act, and Cranmer's Prayer Book. He rejected Calvinism, but he was the Archbishop of Canterbury for Charles I. In 1637, they visited Scotland. To put it mildly, they were very much surprised by the attitude of the Scottish people. A ruling Scotland from London, they enjoyed a tremendous amount of ignorance as to what the Scots were and what they wanted. In 1637 they speedily learned what the Scottish people wanted. And so they prepared a book of church order which all the Scottish ministers had to sign. And it also decreed that all meetings of church officers and presbyteries and general assemblies were illegal. So it really removed all the acts of the Scottish Church from the role of legality and made them all illegal. This was a drastic change. But wait a minute. In 1638, Scotland arose and signed the National Covenant of 1638. This was the Great Covenant. And you know what? Charles accepted it. Why did he do it? Things were getting hot in England, and he decided he would go along with these boys up in Edinburgh. This was signed by the nobles, the barons, the ministers, the gentlemen, the burgesses, and many other members of the church, a great Irish church in Edinburgh. And it was ratified by the Parliament of Scotland. Now, you say I'm giving you history. I am. Because you have to understand the role of history in the formation and the appearance and the emergence of the Covenanters. Because by 1640, the pot was boiling. One of the Covenanters gave an excellent summary, and this is what I wanted to read to you. Because here we have Covenanter theology, Covenanter polity, Covenanter bravery, Covenanter concept of worship, the whole Covenanter position admirably expressed. The word of God as the sole rule of faith and morals was restored to its authoritative position. The Lord Jesus Christ was again enthroned as the head of the church. The principle of autocracy was condemned. The national will regarding religion expressed in the Covenant was unmistakably announced. Episcopacy, no, as a foreign and unwelcome imposition was extinguished. Scottish Presbyteria's apology warranted by Scripture was revived. The right of the laity to representation in Church courts was ratified. The Covenant of 1630 is a most marvelous and interesting document because In this, the Covenanters virtually accepted the thesis put forward by Charles that an absolute monarch demanded an absolute government in the church. They said, Charles, you're right at that point, but Charles, you're wrong because you don't need either an absolute government in the realm or an absolute government in the church. But I would say this to the Covenanters, and we'll see this coming out again. They were always very, very careful. to distinguish between monarchy as such and the king as such. This is a very important distinction which characterized almost all the covenanters throughout their history. You may remember, and I'm going to come back to this, but you may remember that in his first series of films, Francis Schaeffer, whatever happened to the human race, no, How Shall We Then Live, you may remember that he paid a great deal of attention to Samuel Rutherford's great work, Lex Rex. That is probably the best expression of the whole covenantal position on church government available. I would beg you, particularly you who are seminary students, those of you who are in politics or thinking about entering politics, or even going to vote for politicians, first to read Lex Rex. It's a great work. But the covenants were very, very careful to distinguish between the monarchy as an ordained institution, ordained by God, issued by God, and the man who filled the position. And they were simply horrified, the covenants were horrified, when Cromwell had Charles I put to death. And this is to their great credit. They were not in any way involved in that deed. As a matter of fact, many historians today would say that the English put the death of the wrong king. If they were going to put the king to death, they should have gotten Charles II, if you approve of the policy. I don't know if you agree with that or not. You may remember from your English sister that Charles ruled without Parliament for some 11 years. But in 1640, he decided time had come to renew warfare against Scotland. There was only one problem for Charles. He had no money. And by this time, to get money, he had to call Parliament. And when he called Parliament, Parliament was in no mood to grant him the money that he wanted. Actually, in 1640, Charles had invaded Scotland. In spite of the fact that he had no money, he just printed it. So in 1642 both Charles and the Parliament were seeking allies, namely the Scottish leaders. And so out of this came in 1643 the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. And at the same time the calling of the Westminster Assembly. Now you see how the Lord is working. This upheaval, this battle over taxation. which had brought Charles into a very serious situation with the outbreak of the Civil War, how the Lord was using this English Civil War to force Charles into a very serious position and to make the Parliament, which by 1643 was under Puritan control, into headlong conflict, so that all of history reveals the will of God. I do not mean to imply that we can always discern all which is involved. I do not mean that, but I always think of the great words of Augustine, omnia ad gloriam dei referenda est, translating, all things must be referred to the glory of God. And again, as he wrote, gratia et electio mysterium et ascentia historiae, which translated is grace and election are the essence and mystery of history. And when we come to 1643, we see the interlocking of grace and election as the essence and the mystery of history. For in 1643, the Scots drive a hard bargain, they always do. And so what happened was, the result was the calling of the Westminster Assembly, with which I shall deal tomorrow. I cannot do it today. I'm not going to try to, but that will be my topic for tomorrow. However, you may remember that in 1643, then, the Psalm-Ligon Covenant was brought to light. And I want to read to you a bit of this document, not to bore you, but simply to let you see in what great English they wrote. if for no other reason, to alliterate value. But what did they have in mind first? They had in mind the reformation of religion in Ireland and Wales, according to the Word of God, and the reformation of the Church in England. I might point out that the Covenanters never, never, never denied that the theology of the Church of England was good. And in 1618, at Dort in all the future work or discussions involving the Church of England, they never denied that the theology of the Church of England was thoroughly in accord with the Word of God. Sometimes we misunderstand it. They were not qualling with its theological heritage from Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and so on. They were qualling with the idea of an absolute episcopacy. That was the point. This was what they were opposed to, because they recognized that an absolute episcopacy was the trademark of an absolutist monarchy, and they would have neither. So, let me read just a bit to you. We noblemen, we barons, we knights, we gentlemen, we citizens, Burgess and Commons, of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, Ireland, by the providence of God, living under one king and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of God. and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the honor and happiness of the King's majesty, and his posterity and the true public liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdom, wherein everyone's private condition is included, and calling to mind the treacherous plots, the conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and true profession thereof in all places, we have resolved and determined to enter into a mutual, solemn, legent covenant wherein we all subscribe And each one for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High God, do swear that we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor in our several places and callings the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland and doctrine, worship, discipline, and government against our common enemies. the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and doctrine, worship, discipline, and government according to the word of God, and the example of best-reformed churches in these three kingdoms. And then the conclusion. And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the search of all hearts for the true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer that great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by his Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people. All to the glory of God and enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the tranquility and peace of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths, namely England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This is a noble document. The subscribers bound themselves to Remove all signs of papacy, all signs of potpourri, all signs of bishops, all signs of other ecclesiastical officers, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and to the power of godliness." Note, this document always emphasizes godliness in national life, godliness in church life. It emphasizes sound doctrine, sound government, sound worship, and sound discipline. You know, a modern Presbyterianism, of all hues and varieties, should take note of its heritage at this point, because this is our heritage. This, or these, are our roots. And those who came to this country, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Scotch Presbyterians, all knew this heritage. This is what made them what they were in Scotland, Ireland, and this country. because the name of Jesus Christ was to be honored and glorified. In this same year in which it was signed, 1643, this solemn Lincoln covenant was ratified by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. And at that time, it was also ratified by the joint succession of the English Commons, because England needed allies, particularly commons. They were engaged now in warfare, open warfare against Charles, and they had now the Church of Scotland and the Scottish people on their side. I don't need to go into the history of the Civil War. As you remember, Cromwell appeared, Charles was defeated, and in 1649, the Radicals put him to death. So, in Scotland, as Charles II came to throne, the Covenanters had a very serious time. He became King of England and Scotland in 1660. The death of Cromwell died in 1658. And the Scottish Church officially became Episcopalian. Now that might not sound like a terrible threat to you, sir, but to the Scottish people in 1660, to have the Church made officially Episcopalian was more than many, many of them could bear. They could not stand it. In 1662 Parliament passed an act that is in England requiring all ministers to install in their pulpits since 1649 to obtain royal approval through the various bishops in the dioceses. In other words, if you were a Presbyterian minister in Scotland in 1660 and had gained your position by the Presbytery through the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, you were no longer a valid minister. You had to be approved for your pulpit by a Scottish bishop. This was a sad blow. This at one stroke removed Presbyterianism as a viable force in the Church of Scotland. The first man to give his life was the Marquis of Argyll, a very noble Scotsman. He was a layman. He was beheaded. James Guthrie, the great Christian preacher, was put on the gallows. Misses were rejected from their pulpits, were forbidden to preach, and any who in any way aided encouraged, or even gave them boarding or food, were under the same difficulties. If you aided the Covenanters in any way, you were under the ban of the Empire, so to speak. Frightful penalties, death faced them, deposed ministers, almost three-fourths of the ministers of Scotland left their pulpits. They would not yield their knee to Charles II, and they engaged in that very famous activity, which Wesley makes a very popular letter, open field preaching. They simply took to the fields, preached under haystacks, preached in the open fields, anywhere they could preach. And this was, of course, much to the annoyance of the royal officials, who never knew where they were meeting next. But anyone who attended the meeting was put under the ban, opened to death, death by the sword or by the gallows. And another punishment was derived. They were sent to the West Indies as slaves. The Covenanters were sent as slaves to the West Indies. We have on record at least one of those boats turned turtle in a storm, and 300 of them were drowned in this overturned boat. Most of the Covenanters, of course, were chained together, living in unspeakable conditions. I would point at this point, I don't know whether this book is over in the bookstore or not, there's a man here who can tell you, but Alexander Smalley has put out a tremendous work called Men of the Covenant. which is a series of vivid descriptions of what happened to them. I did not use it very much for my own work because I'd done independent research, but it's a tremendous book to see what actually happened to them, the way they were treated, and the great men who were forced to death. I would like to read to you the last words, the Duke of Argyll. These are noble words. I could die like a Roman, but I chose to die like a Christian. I was ever ready and cordial in my desire to bring the King home. In 1660, they were ready and willing to bring Charles back to the throne because he had signed the solemn Lincoln Cabinet when he was in exile, but this was simply a trick. He'd signed the National Cabinet in 1638. He'd sign anything in 1638 and 1640 if he could just become the next King of England. And of course, with the death of Cromwell, and his son Richard in 1660, and in 1660 the Covenants welcomed him. Within a year they had learned to repent of that welcome. And the words I'm quoting to you are the words which he uttered while he was on the scaffold. I'll continue. I had no accession to his late Majesty's murder. I shall not speak much of these things for which I am condemned. At least I seem to condemn others. But whatever they think, God has laid engagements on Scotland. We are tied by covenants to religion and reformation. Those who are then unborn, he's referring back to 1643, are engaged to it. And it passes the power of all magistrates into heaven. Note this, to absolve a man from his oath to God. It is the duty of every Christian to be loyal. Yet religion must not be a cock boat. I don't know that expression. Is that something like a row boat or a lifeboat or something? Anyway, it must not be a cock boat. It must be the ship. God must have what is his will, and Caesar's what is his. And those are the best subjects. God reigns. Caesar must have his way in things that pertain to him. But above all, we must die as Christians. And as he uttered that last paragraph, which I just quoted, those last words, the axe fell. and the head of Argyle rolled into dust. That same week, James Guthrie, the great preacher, was put to death, and the time of persecution was on. Charles was not satisfied by his success thus far. He had the Scottish Parliament Passing Act to bring the Cuddens to an end, but Argyle had laid down the groundwork. No government, no government The event of Parliament nor Charles can do what? It cannot sever the relationship between God and the believing Covenanter because the Covenant owes its greatest duty to God. No human of power can nullify the oath which the Christian man has given to his God, and Charles did not understand that. There's a great deal of evidence that Charles simply did not understand the Covenanters. And I don't think we realize, we don't realize the devotion which the covenants called forth in the covenants and the great devotion which they had for the Lord Jesus Christ and his church. This is a lost note in American Presbyterianism all too much. We need to get back our heritage. I'm sorry I went two minutes over, I'll close at this time. May we bow in prayer. Our Father and our God, we would truly thank Thee for the heritage which is ours, for the lives of those brave men who, signing these covenants with their blood, gave to us their posterity, this tremendous legacy in the faith. May we not be found unworthy, but, O Lord, wilt Thou make us worthy of this heritage, that we may deepen it, that we may propagate it, and that we may live it. Unto the honor and glory of the name of thy Son, in whose name we pray. Amen. This isn't really your question, this is just a warm-up. No, come on, Mr. Turner. Just a warm-up on this one, then I've got a real question for you. And I have to be short, too, don't I? O. B. Frottingham wrote a long, long book trying to define transcendentalism and never came to it. And those who have dealt with American intellectual history have had likewise a difficulty. So whoever wrote this question must have been aware of the fact they're giving me a loaded gun. Very briefly, Transcendentalism was that philosophy derived originally from Kant, more recently derived from Hegel, who of course modified Kant, and which came in this country both directly from Germany, by means of the men I mentioned, and from England, largely through the Romantic poets, but particularly through Wordsworth. who had a strange fascination for the American mind. So, Transcendentalism was the reaction to Lockean epistemology, philosophy, and to deism. Instead of being cold and harsh and strictly logical, they emoted. It was based upon experience, but not of the senses so much as of the mind. And Transcendentalism refers to its definite relationship to Kant and to Hegel. It was a philosophy which denied the reality of the material world, not totally, but would call men to listen to the birds and the trees. Emerson expressed it when he said, why should I go to the five books of Moses to learn about God when I can sit by the brick and listen to the rippling waters and the singing of the birds? And that, I think, is not a very good definition. But in the time which I have, it's about as good as I can do. Thank you. Don't leave. You have twice made the statement that Presbyterians are the heart of evangelicalism and that whether they know it or not, all non-Presbyterian evangelicals are indebted to Presbyterians for providing their lifeblood. That's right. Go sit down. That's not the question, that's the statement. As a non-Presbyterian evangelical, I have been unaware of this fact until now. What is your justification for making this statement? That's the question. That's the question. The question I shall try to deal with as briefly as possible. Of course, the trouble is I give a course now. Let me be fair with you. What we call the evangelical theologians in this country, for the most part, have been semi-Calvinists or in revolt against Calvinism. And in the writings, they've had to express either implicitly or explicitly their disagreement with Calvinism. To the extent to which, and they are evangelical, I don't deny they're Christians, I don't deny any of that. I am saying that the lifeblood of modern evangelical thought, even though it be non-Calvinistic, and this is true even of dispensationalists, although they would not admit it, that their system, even the form of their theology, I'm speaking now of the systematic form, the whole gamut of their thinking is based upon Calvin and the Westminster Standards. They go to the great statements of faith in order to deny them, to erect their own systems. Now may I say something here, and I hope that you won't take it in the wrong sense. There's a great deal of Arminianism in modern Evangelicalism. I would go a step further. In some forms of modern Evangelicalism, there is a serious departure from the doctrine of the Trinity. You may not know this, but Louis Berry Chafer's systematic theology presents a very faulty view of the Trinity, and he got it from Peter Amoraldis, the French Arminian, somewhat before the time of Jacques Arminius in the Netherlands. Now, this is not accidental. In order to sustain his dispensational position, he found it necessary to adopt a true enough and historic form of theology, but a digression from the pure scriptural doctrine of Trinity as found in Calvin and the Westminster Standards, not to mention the French Confession of Faith of 1560 and a few other confessions. Now this is what I mean, but for its sustenance, for its great scholarship, Presbyterianism in this country from the days of John Witherspoon, from Archibald Alexander, from Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and all the other Hodges, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and the great crew, I should not use that word, but the great company of Westminster Seminary, their allies, and Dr. James Henley Thornwell of Columbia Seminary, and of course another great one by the name of Dr. Robert L. Dabney of Union Seminary and their descendants until recently. These men provide the sinews of systematic theology in this country. They provided the textbooks on which these people were trained, so that when they went off into various other things, they did so with the full knowledge that they were borrowing capital which was not theirs to borrow, and they only borrowed part of it. Now, I hope I've answered that in a reasonable period of time, but thank you for the question. Now, whoever wrote that who's a non-Preston now knows something he or she didn't know before these lectures. Dr. Singer. In calling on us to read the record of what are you speaking, please be specific. And then two related questions. Also, what constitutes a revolution as opposed to asserting independence? To put it another way, what is the difference between a war for independence and a revolutionary war according to the Bible? There are good questions. I appreciate them. defined by specialists in government and political scientists and constitutional historians is that movement which seeks to overthrow by force any existing, that is a legally existing, government. A forceful overthrow of a government which has de jure existence. Now, to assert independence is just the opposite. We speak of the war of the revolution. And some people do, I never do. Because if you understand American history, I think correctly, the revolution was intended to be carried out in this country against the rightfully existing state governments in this country. Whereas we never sought to overthrow the government legally established in Great Britain. We did have problems with the King of England, George III, so did the English for that matter. But if you understand the thinking of the real leadership of 1776, they were not seeking to destroy the government in England. They were seeking, according to the prologue of the Declaration of Independence, to establish an independent nation, which, under the definition of political scientists and so on, constitutional historians, is secession. is a very vital difference. And I think that difference needs to be observed, because if you accept this, as is generally accepted, I think, there is no way of opposing the war for southern independence, because we were a secession movement. We are not trying to overthrow the government in Washington. We were seceding from it. And this is a very vital difference, which constitutional historians have long recognized, and particularly did Andrew Johnson. And particularly did Abraham Lincoln. And this is one of the keys to his concept of the war. So I think the scriptures do not, they do forbid revolution. I am convinced of that. I am going to bring, I think, a message at the Sabbath school on this Romans 13, 1-8. I have decided to do that and try to pack the rest of my material in two days, which may not work. But I hope I have been clear on that point. If anybody wants to talk later about it, see me privately. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video, and printed formats. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog, containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes and videos at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email by phone at 780-450-3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton, that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since He condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.