We have been looking at the eschatology of victory in the teaching of John Calvin. Most recently we have looked at John Calvin's doctrine of law and then gone on to consider his doctrine of the last things especially in this world before the second coming. Now John Calvin died in 1564 but two years before he died two very famous confessions of faith largely influenced by his thought were formulated the Heidelberg Catechism written in Germany by Ercinus and Elevianus and the Belgic Confession originating in Belgium written by Guido de Bray, both of them written in 1562 I would like to spend this lecture dealing in some detail with the law content and also the eschatology of these two famous documents. The Heidelberg Catechism, as you probably know, is to this day the official doctrine of all German-reformed and Dutch-reformed and South African-reformed and North American-reformed churches. Whereas the Belgic Confession is the official doctrine of the Dutch Reformed, Belgian Reformed, North American Reformed, and South African Reformed churches, sometimes held together with the Heidelberg Catechism. Now, the first thing I'd like to say about the Heidelberg Catechism, written two years before Calvin died, is this. It is a compromised document. Not many people realize that, but it is. The deliberate intention of the Heidelberg Catechism was not to hammer away at an exclusive form of Calvinism, which would distantiate itself from Lutheranism, but it had an ecumenical, in the good sense of the word, an ecumenical intention. That is to say, it was the purpose of the Heidelberg Catechism to unify Calvinists and Lutherans together to form one Protestant church. It was drawn up by Calvinists, but with the full approval and encouragement of Philip Melanchthon, the Lutheran, and that's why if you look at the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism on the sacraments, you will find that it carefully avoids any condemnation of the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. It tries to form a common ground on which both Lutherans and Calvinists could unite. I want to stress this, and Philip Melanchthon, as my memory recalls, indicated his full approval with the Heidelberg Catechism. I want to stress this fact because we need to see that the Heidelberg Catechism is not out to isolate Calvinists from their fellow Protestants, but to try to bring about the unification of the already fragmenting Protestant churches of the Reformation. And so what I'm about to give you now with the Heidelberg Catechism really was designed and approved by the Lutheran Melanchthon, Luther's right-hand man, to gain the approval of all of the Orthodox Protestants in Reformational times. Now in the Catechism, question or Sunday number 12, we are asked a very important question. How are we again accepted to grace? That word again is very important. It implies that Adam had received grace before the fall. If grace is God's unmerited favor, then we see that you can receive grace even before you become a sinner. This should be obvious when we note the statement in Luke chapter 2 that our Savior, Jesus Christ, the sinless one, who needed no forgiveness of sins, increased in grace and in favor before God and man. In other words, grace is not fundamentally something that you need to have your sins forgiven. No, no. Grace is God's unmerited favor which you need to do a job, an earthly job, to God's glory, such as subjecting the earth and the sea and the sky to God's glory in the Garden of Eden, as in the case of Adam, or to become a good carpenter as in the case of the sinless Lord Jesus Christ. How are we again accepted to grace? The catechism gives us this answer that we are accepted again to grace through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. And then in the 32nd question of the catechism we are asked why are you called a Christian? and notice again the careful answer not just because I know that when I die I'll go to heaven but rather I am called a Christian because I am a member of Christ by faith and thus am partaker of his anointing or to flesh it out in holy baptism I have been anointed a prophet a priest and a king a prophet to give the right names to everything in the universe, a priest to dedicate not just my soul but my hands, my fingernails, my hair and my big toes to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and I have been anointed in baptism a king to rule over the earth and the sea and the sky and to dominate it to the glory of God. In order that I may confess his name and present myself a living thank offering to him and that I may with a free and good conscience fight against sin and Satan in this life and hereafter reign with him eternally over all creatures but now unfortunately man falls into sin and man falling into sin inhibits him from carrying out his anointed prophetic priestly and kingly work to the glory of God and so God gives us before the fall positively and after the fall chiefly negatively a formulation of his holy law the ten commandments specifically as guidelines to help us to be prophets priests and kings to his glory in the most effective way and question 100 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks a very crucial question in respect to the third commandment. Is then the profaning of God's name by swearing and cursing so grievous a sin that his wrath is kindled against those also who seek not, as much as in them lies, to hinder and forbid the same? Answer, yes, truly, for no sin is greater or more provoking to God and the profaning of his name. Wherefore God even commanded it to be punished with death. You've heard a great deal recently in ostensibly Presbyterian reformed circles about the propriety of the death penalty. I'd like to point out that question 100 of the Heidelberg Catechism points out that God commanded the death penalty to be inflicted against those who misuse and abuse his holy name. And question 101 asks, may we not swear by the name of God in a religious manner? Answer, yes, when the magistrate requires it. In other words, we are to have concern for the furtherance of God's kingdom in the political realm as far as the magistrate is concerned, or when it may be needful otherwise to maintain and promote fidelity and truth. to the glory of God and our neighbor's good for such swearing is grounded in God's word and therefore was rightly used by the saints in the old and in the New Testament notice how the Heidelberg Catechism places the old and the New Testament on the same level and so too in the exposition of the fifth commandment honor thy father and thy mother the catechism makes it plain to us But this not only means children obey your parents, it also means wives obey your husbands, citizens obey your government, church members obey your session, pupils obey your schoolteachers, and so on and so forth. And it also means parents love your children, husbands love your wives, governments love your citizens, schoolteachers love your pupils. elders love the people in the pew. You can see from this that according to the Heidelberg Catechism and its implications this commandment like all of the other commandments is not limited to church work alone but it embraces every avenue of human endeavor. And then in question 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism we are told that the Romish mass is an accursed idolatry. We'll be going into this when we get to the area of freedom of religion in just a few minutes time, but it's important for us to realize the Heidelberg Catechism's assessment of transubstantiation. And then moving on into the area of eschatology, we find the Heidelberg Catechism in question 123 explaining the Lord's Prayer and specifically the meaning of the petition, Thy Kingdom Come. That is, says the Catechism, so govern us by thy word and spirit, that we may submit ourselves more and more unto thee, preserve and increase thy church, destroy the works of the devil, and all power that would exalt itself against thee, and also all wicked counsels devised against thy holy word, till the full perfection of thy kingdom shall have come and then in question 127 of the catechism we are told that the petition there toward the end of the Lord's Prayer means do thou therefore preserve and strengthen us by the power of thy Holy Spirit that we may not be overcome in the spiritual warfare but constantly and strenuously that we may defeat and resist our foes till at last we obtain a complete victory. We now move to the Belgic Confession written by Calvinists in Belgium in the same year. The man who wrote it, by the way, Guido de Bres, was martyred by the Roman Catholics for his Protestant Calvinist faith. Now The Belgic Confession in Article 25 declares the reformed faith to the nation of Holland from which South Africa sprang less than a hundred years later. We believe that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ and that all the shadows are accomplished yet the truth and substance of them remain with us In the meantime, we still use the testimonies, that is the judicial law, taken out of the law and the prophets, to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God according to His will. The truth and substance of the accomplished ceremonial laws, then, remain with us, says the Confession. with us Christians and the judicial laws are still very much in use among us Christians according to their substance for we still use the testimonies to regulate our life now this means as many of the reformed theologians of Holland have again just recently declared this means that the spirit of the civil laws of Moses as declared by Christ is of permanent validity. For even though the Old Testament ordinances, strictly speaking, refer to quite different situations and relationships, compare Exodus 22 and 23, Deuteronomy 15, etc., nevertheless, a mighty message is still preached by their concrete application of the commandment of love, especially as regards problems relating to property, and social relationships over against all kinds of neo-liberalistic and neo-socialistic influences. Thus far, the comment of modern 20th century Orthodox Dutch theologians on the meaning of the Belgic Confession, Article 25. But it's especially in Article 36 dealing with the role and the calling of the civil magistrates that we must now look to derive vital instruction for the preservation of Western civilization today. And it's interesting that this Article 36 has never ever been amended by any of the Calvinist churches in South Africa. It's upheld tooth and nail to this day. Attempts have been made to change it and to soften it. I'm happy to say that I myself have been instrumental in defeating those attempts some ten years ago. But listen to these words. Concerning the magistrates, we believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies, to the end that the dissoluteness of man might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose, he hath invested the magistracy with the sword for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them that do well. And their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry. and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship, that the kingdom of Antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshiped by everyone as he commands in his word. Moreover, it is the bounden duty of everyone of what state, quality, or condition soever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates, to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God, to supplicate for them in their prayers that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore, we detest the error of the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and who would subvert justice, introduce a community of goods, and confound that decency and good order which God hath established among men." Now there are a few highlights of this important article that I've just read that I'd like to zero in on. First of all, you will notice that this article is not requiring the compulsory conversion to Christianity of non-Christians at the point of the sword. It's not saying that. Nor is it calling for the wiping out and the extermination of idolaters, but only of idolatry. There's a difference between wiping out idolaters and wiping out idolatry. Still less is it calling for the wiping out of heresy, meaning by that doctrinal deviation in sub-Christian groups with whom we disagree. Still less is it calling for the extermination of heretics. That means people who may be on the fringe of Christianity or sub-Christianity with whom we don't agree. It's not saying any of that. But it is calling for the magistrate to wield his sword, and the original French there has, le glaive, for the punishment of evil doers, pour punir les méchants, and for the praise of them that do well. Original French is very interesting there, et maintenir les gens de bien. The praise of them that does well, as a calling of the magistrate, the original French says, the maintenance of the good mankind. In other words, the state has a holy calling to maintain the right kind of people and to put down the wrong kind of people, or rather the evil of the wrong kind of people. Then it goes on to say that the state further has the calling to protect the sacred ministry. And the original French there is, maintenir le sacré ministère. In other words, to maintain the holy ministry. This, of course, has been much questioned by some bodies in the United States and elsewhere, and the question is very much, what does it mean by maintain the sacred ministry? It does not mean, of course, for the state to do the work of the church, but it does mean for the Christian state to put down all sedition which would overthrow the Christian church in its preaching of the gospel, and for the state to maintain the preaching of the gospel in that way. Furthermore, the state is herein joined to remove and prevent all idolatry, not idolaters, but idolatry, and false Worship. The French there has, haute et ruinaire, toute idolatrie et faux service de Dieu. In other words, it is the calling of the state to ruin all idolatry and the false service of God. Service there probably meaning worship of God in a cultic situation. Also, we're told that it's a function of the state to promote the kingdom of Christ. The French there has avancé le voyant de Jésus Christ, to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ. The state is to be actively involved in extending the kingdom of Christ, not by the state preaching, but by the state rooting out crime and rewarding good citizens. Because by the rooting out of crime, the kingdom of Christ is advanced. By the rewarding of the good citizenry, the kingdom of Christ is advanced as it is to by the preaching of the gospel. The English then has to promote the kingdom of Christ and the state must therefore countenance the preaching of the word. What does it mean, countenance the preaching of the word? The original French has, Faire prêcher la parole de l'évangile partout, which means that the state is to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ to make the preaching of the word of the gospel everywhere. Not that the state is to preach, but the state by putting down iniquity is to make it possible for the church to preach the gospel and for the church in its way to advance Christ's kingdom in the ecclesiastical realm even as the state is to advance the same kingdom of Christ in the judicial realm. And finally, it says here that the state is to act in such a way that the gospel will be preached everywhere so that God may be honored and worshipped by everyone. God will be honored and served by everyone. Not just sung to by everyone, but served by everyone. What I'm saying is the original French, it seems to me, seems to give an even more vigorous mandate to the Christian state to advance the gospel in every way than the somewhat weaker English translation may at first blush suggest and then I also notice that while the citizens are to obey the government in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God that they are to pray that God may rule and guide the government in all their ways. And the word for guide there is diriger, in the French, to direct, as it were, to keep on the right track. And finally, there is a strong condemnation of the Anabaptists. Anabaptists. Now folks, this is not the Baptists. You understand there's a difference between the Anabaptists and the Baptists. Baptists today are inconsistent Calvinists who unfortunately reject infant baptism, but who sometimes hold to the five points of Calvinism, or three or four of the points of Calvinism, and for that we can thank God. Baptists are inconsistent Calvinists. But the Anabaptists were something completely different. The Anabaptists were a horrible crowd of people who quite incidentally rejected infant baptism of immersed adults, but far more importantly, they practiced community of women And they shared all of their property as communists. We have some of these crowds today on the left fringe of evangelicalism, even in the United States, not quite so extreme. And I want you to see that the Belgic Confession detests the errors of the Anabaptists. And you'll notice it's not about to detest the error of immersionism, at least not at this point. It's more interested in detesting the error of civil uproar and sedition of these Anabaptists who were always in the street trying to bring the government down. We detest the error of the Anabaptists and other seditious people. The French here has the word mutin, mutinies. We detest the mutinies of the Anabaptists. And in general, all of those who reject the higher powers and the magistrates and who want to subvert justice, who want to introduce a community of goods, and to confound that decency and good order which God hath established among men. In other words, communism, sharing of women and sharing of goods is to be put down by the power of the sword. And I think one of the tragic things that we see in the West today, in almost every Western country except South Africa, now that Rhodesia is gone, is the laxity of Western governments to put down communism, if necessary, with the power of the sword. I think that we are criminally negligent at this point to wipe out atheism, to control it, to restrict it. Of course, we've sold our souls to the idol of democracy, the idea that every kind of error and every kind of atheism is a man's perfect right just as much as it is to worship the true God. What can we expect? See, we have abandoned the fountain of living waters and the teaching of God's holy word and there is no light in us because we have chosen for civil rights rather than for the rights of God. Well, so much for the Belgium Confession, Article 36. As you know, the Christian Reformed Church USA is among those churches in the world who are embarrassed by these words today. They have altered them. They've gotten rid of them. And they've changed their confession. Whereas the Reformed Churches of South Africa, of Ceylon, and of New Zealand, and the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia have not done this. Nor, by the way, has the Reformed Church of America amended this article, interestingly enough. But Professor Kroeningaay of the Christian Reformed Church USA while thinking there was some language here that needed clarifying, wrote a little book to prove that article 36 that I've just read you as originally given really did not say the things that Dr. Abram Kuyper and his democratizing party incorrectly alleged in 1905 that this article was saying when they monkeyed around and got the thing changed in their churches in Holland and this was followed by some reformed churches elsewhere in the world. Well, we'll deal with some of that later, perhaps. But at this point, I would like for us to note that even the Latin text says that it is a calling of the state, In other words, it's the calling of the state, says the Latin, to undermine all idolatry and adulteration of the cultic worship of God and to avoid it and to this way destroy the kingdom of Antichrist. Now, at the beginning of the Reformation in Holland the condition was of such a nature that at first only the Roman Catholic religion was tolerated and the Reformed religion was prohibited The various laws that were established by the then Roman Catholic government of Holland and of Belgium always opposed the Reformation and allowed no freedom whatsoever for the Protestants to worship God in public. But in 1565, some three years after this Belgic confession that I've just quoted you from was formulated a request came from three million people to the Roman Catholic authorities of Holland and of Belgium pointing out that the Pope of Rome had allowed the Jews freedom of religion at Rome and now if the Pope would allow the unbaptized Jews to worship God while disbelieving that Christ is God in Rome Why then should the Roman Catholic authority in Holland and Belgium not allow Protestants who do believe in Christ being God to worship Christ publicly according to their convictions in Holland? Well, the head of Holland at that time was Prince William of Orange and he was a Roman Catholic at that time but a very tolerant Roman Catholic unlike most other Catholics and from the very beginning he was in favor of religious liberty uh... and yet he was still a roman catholic on the other hand there was a great calvinist reformer called peter that penis uh... the man responsible for the personification of the dutch songs and in fifteen seventy eight in the city of get he and others uh... suddenly revealed themselves to be opposed uh... to the toleration of Roman Catholicism in those areas of Holland which had now become predominantly Calvinistic. He was joined by Hembesa and Rayhover and two groups immediately opposed him, namely those who believed in total religious liberty, even to serve Satan on the one hand, and in the second place he was opposed by some more tolerant Calvinists. but even those Calvinists who opposed de Taine in his attempt de Taine, D-A-T-H-E-E-N those Calvinists who opposed him were split into two groups one group that opposed him said that whatever we Calvinists demand for ourselves that is freedom of religion we are obligated to give to others including to Roman Catholics If we are not to allow the Roman Catholics to serve God publicly, we will only make the Roman Catholics hypocritical and drive them underground, or worse still, turn them into atheists or into totally irreligious people. But the other group of Calvinists opposing Dattain said that whereas we should indeed make peace with the Roman Catholics, as those who have the same baptism that we have bear in mind most of these Calvinists had only been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church and they saw that as a bond between themselves and Rome nevertheless they said no truly Christian government may ever permit public idolatry and so the nutty question arose Are they going to allow Roman Catholics to practice their religion and specifically to celebrate the mass which you will recall the Heidelberg Catechism question eight to just three years earlier had condemned as an accursed idolatry. You see the problem. Well Count Jan of Nassau who was the commander in chief of the province of Gelderland was a Calvinist but the people in his province or state were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. He asked three Calvinists, Jan Villiers, I won't bother to spell it, Taffan, who was a very famous Calvinist, but especially Marnix of St. Aldegonde, who was the chief writer of the Dort Dutch Bible, commissioned at the Synod of Dort, which adopted the five points of Calvinism. He asked them for an opinion. and they answered him as follows it is not against the scriptures to enter into a covenant especially a political covenant with people who disagree with our reformed religion they pointed to the case of Abraham entering into a political covenant with the heathen princes and they said that they favored entering into a covenant with the Roman Catholics to permit the Roman Catholics to worship the Christian God as they understood him in their own homes and in their own public buildings but that Rome was to be their own private buildings their own churches but that Rome was to be prohibited from having street processions such as they still have to this very day in South America carrying the mass and the bread through the streets. They said that we will not tolerate. That is public idolatry. But an Englishman's home is his castle, as it were, and what he does behind his front door should be no business of the state. You see here an attempt to wrestle with the problem of the limits of state power while at the same time having a godly state that would attempt to apply the Ten Commandments in political life. However, they added, if the Roman Catholics are found to be disloyal subjects to Holland politically. And if we find that they are in league with our enemy, the King of Spain, who quite incidentally happens to be a Roman Catholic, then we will prohibit Catholic worship even in those areas, but not because it is a perversion of Christianity, but because it is treason against the Dutch Christian state. Now that was the way they went about trying to solve it. Well, in 1580, an important turn of events took place. Prince William of Orange took the position that all Dutchmen, whether they were Reformed, Romish, or even Baptists and Anabaptists, provided they were mildly so, should have freedom of religion. He went very far in what he was advocating, but Marnix of St. Aldegonde, who later wrote the footnotes of the Dort Dutch Bible commissioned by the Synod of Dort disagreed with his king and many with him too could not bring themselves to agree that what their king was saying who had now converted by the way from Romanism to Calvinism they felt that his view was a little soft well, Marnix took the position that as far as the seditious mutinous and revolutionary Anabaptists were concerned that they needed to be put down and punished by the government. On the other hand, he insisted that Roman Catholics, with whom he disagreed, should be allowed to worship God unmolestedly in buildings which they themselves owned unless they were found to be loyal to the King of Spain. He also took the position that milder Anabaptists, who were not involved in community of women, community of property, or sedition and mutiny and burning down of the city hall and this sort of thing and a lot of this sort of thing went on especially at the hands of the Anabaptists throughout large hunks of Western Europe at that time should be tolerated well in July 1578 at the Synod of Dort or Dordrecht which met in that year, there were several at different times Caspar van der Heijden and Tafan and de Villiers and Dattain, most of whom we've mentioned before, drew up a position paper on this. And their position was that no religion should be allowed to divide the state and split the loyalties of the subjects into various camps. The interesting thing here is that you see that the moderates have now converted Dattain, who first of all did want to prevent Roman Catholic worship to a more moderating position. Well now, we can summarize what we've just said as follows. First, we see that the Dutch Reformed people at their inception took the position that there should be equal rights between Roman Catholics and Calvinists and that both should be allowed in their own privately owned buildings to exercise their religion. Second, that this tolerance should never be allowed to degenerate into religious indifferentism but only was to be only to be advocated on the ground that the government should never allow any force to be used to try and convert a person from one religion to another then They did prevent Roman Catholics worshipping in their own church buildings in every province where the loyalty of the Roman Catholics to the Dutch authorities was suspect and where they had ground to believe there was collusion with their mutual enemies, the Spaniards. The Anabaptists were regarded as a danger to the state in breaking up families, in destroying private property, and in practicing sedition in the streets and they were not tolerated unless they were observed not to be doing any of these things, in which case they were. Well, they also went further and said that all cases of blasphemy which were also regarded as disturbing civil order were to be punished. Now, all of this was unfortunately changed in the Dutch churches of Dr. Abram Kuiper and by Dr. Abram Kuiper who was very strongly resisted in his changes in 1905 by Philip Hudemacher and by his later successor A. A. Van Ruller about whom I shall say something later. He just died a few years ago. Now the conclusion that we must come to on all this is as follows. These words or rather the conclusion we must come to is as follows first of all the article 36 of the Belgic Confession is talking about the extermination of idolatry and not of idolaters and it's not talking about the extermination of either heretics or heresy except that heresy which would engender mutiny it's also saying that a position should be taken against idolatry and false religion in public and this would then mean today that all religious groups that would seek to overthrow the law of God such as the Mormons and perhaps such dispensationalists who by their agitation against the law of God would weaken the state to uphold the Ten Commandments in civil affairs would need to be dealt with appropriately. That doesn't mean that they need face the death penalty, but it does mean that they need to be restrained from spreading views which would undermine the calling of the Christian state to do its duty. This may be very difficult to restore in the world today, particularly in the United States, but this was the understanding of the Dutch Calvinists as to the correct calling of the state. Now then, which passages of scripture did the Belgic fathers appeal to for this position on the calling of the state? Well, first of all, they noted Deuteronomy 16 and 17 pointing to the duty of judges or magistrates to execute righteousness. They pointed out that kings are bound to the law of God, which God has revealed to Israel. And they further referred to Psalm 82, Proverbs 31, and Daniel 4. Then they pointed out that the kings are to fear God and to honor the Son, specifically honor the Son, Jesus Christ. Psalm 2 and Psalm 148. And then they said that the Bible teaches that kings and magistrates are to do right and righteousness if their empires or republics are to be prospered. Deuteronomy 17, Proverbs 16 and 25 and 29, 2 Samuel 8, 1 Chronicles 18 and especially Jeremiah 22 they referred to. Then they pointed out that Proverbs 20 teaches that a wise king scatters the godless and brings the wheel over him and they felt that that pointed to very severe punishments even if necessary the punishment of death. They then said that godlessness or the abandonment of the way of the Lord and the trampling down of the commandments of God causes any kingdom to go under and that it disturbs a people. They pointed out that this happened especially with reference to the non-Israelitic people Genesis 6, Genesis 18, Genesis 15, Deuteronomy 9, Deuteronomy 18, Jeremiah 25 and so forth and then finally they pointed people to the book of Proverbs the first few verses the qualifications of King Lemuel and said that this requires that a government must be brave must be benevolent, must be wise, must be righteous, must not be rulers who are slaves, must not be immoral people, drunkards, atheists, or liars. Now then, when all of the above texts call upon a government to be righteous, it is obvious that the righteousness intended is the Torah, the law of God. This is the norm for what constitutes right and righteousness of the government. Now let us look at further scriptural proofs that are pointed to in Article 36 of the Belgian Confession as originally constituted in its unamended form. I should point out that the following texts I'm about to give you were the texts that the early Dutch fathers gave to prove that article from 1562 until the Synod of Dort in 1618. In 1618, very unfortunately, the Synod of Dort decided to accept the articles of the Belgic Confession but to omit the footnotes from that point onward. But what I'm giving you now are the original footnotes that obtained for 50 years. I don't think that Dort wanted to abandon the footnotes, it's just that they didn't see the need of including them. But here are the footnotes that were given in the original version. First of all, Exodus 18. To the effect that the authorities of... that the law of God must be explained to a nation by its political authorities, and not only by church elders. the further implication was that no one should become a civil magistrate or a politician until he's first served as an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ that's a position which I myself hold by the way they also drew attention to Romans chapter 13 to Proverbs chapter 8 to prove that government is instituted by God to Jeremiah chapter 22 that the righteousness of the Lord must be maintained in social life Psalm 82 referring to judicial pronouncements Deuteronomy 1 same thing Deuteronomy 17 dealing with the fact that magistrates are not to be people who have too many horses and have too many employees otherwise it may distract them from the important job that they have to do in ruling Deuteronomy 16 again dealing with judicial pronouncements then very interestingly 2nd Corinthians chapter 10 that the word of God is powerful to the bringing down of strongholds here's a New Testament text which the fathers applied to the work of government in putting down the wicked Very interestingly, Psalm 101 and especially verse 8, I will exterminate all of the godless from the land and I will wipe out all of those who practice unrighteousness in the city, says the Lord. This does not necessarily and literally imply the death penalty, though it may under certain circumstances do this. Further, 1 Kings chapter 2, which I'll deal with when I get to the last Prime Minister of South Africa, which he used to put down communism there just about 10 or 15 years ago. Jeremiah 21, due righteousness according to the law. Judges 21, the people had no king and everyone did what was right in his own light. Daniel chapter 2, that the Lord has the kings and the empires in his hand and of course Jeremiah 49 that Calvin had used copiously which the Westminster Confession uses and that is that the magistrate is to be a nursemaid for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ they also pointed out that the state is to maintain its hand and control over the preaching of the gospel by which they meant The state is to encourage the church to praise the Lord in what it does. And it's fascinating here to see that this was not applied in the footnoting to the Israelitic state. But the footnotes selected here show the obligation of the Gentile heathen state to encourage the church to preach the gospel and to praise God. In other words, the government of Soviet Union is just as as obliged in the sight of almighty God to require the preaching of the gospel through the churches in Russia as is the government of the United States that's what they were saying then they pointed very briefly to 2nd Kings 23 and 1st Kings 15 how King Asa took away the idols in the land and also to the reformation of godly King Josiah and how he dealt with the idolatry in his kingdom They also went on to point out that the various Christian sects were to be tolerated. In other words, they would say that Pentecostalists, Baptists, Methodists, and non-reformed groups are to be tolerated, provided they just preach the gospel and don't try to burn down the city hall and this sort of thing, even though the magistrates who are reformed may not agree with the brand of Christianity being promoted. They never ever tried to put down that exercise of freedom of religion and then we must point out that they pointed out that in terms of article 25 of the Belgic Confession our lives were still to be regulated to the honor of God in terms of the judicial laws and they took that as a monitor of article 36 and saw it as one of the callings of the godly state There are also many other texts which they quoted. I'll mention them without comment. Romans 13, Luke 22, 1 Peter 2, Titus 3, Matthew 17, Acts 4, and 1 Timothy chapter 2. Finally, in Article 37, right after Article 36, we see the eschatological conclusion that all of this a governmental activity is leading to we believe finally that the Word of God according to the Word of God when the time appointed by the Lord is come and the number of the elect is complete that our Lord Jesus will come from heaven corporally burning this old world to cleanse it not to destroy it pour le purifier to cleanse it so we see that all of this governmental activity subordinate to the coming of the kingdom eschatologically. We'll deal with this in greater detail in the next lecture. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwaters Revival Books. You are welcome to make copies and give them to those in need. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video and printed formats. It is likely that the sermon or book that you just listened to is also available on cassette or video, or as a printed book or booklet. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog, Thank you. by phone at 780-450-3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Kelvin, 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.