The Secularization of Protestant Nations; The Jesuit Agenda to Destroy the Reformation, ed. Drake Friday, Dec 30 2011 

The following quotation is taken from THY KINGDOM COME: A SKETCH OF CHRIST’S CHURCH IN HISTORY – BOOK II-CHAPTER 44 : THE MODERN HUMANISTIC ERA- Compiled and edited by J. Parnell McCarter

“The Holy Roman Empire was declining and proving inadequate to stop the Protestant Reformation. So a new institution – one more equipped for the task – was needed byRome. In stepped the Jesuit Order, led by its Superior General (sometimes referred to as “the Black Pope”), to fill these shoes. In the era of Protestant Reformation she began to enjoy remarkable success, and she continued her success into the modern era. Indeed, one important factor for the very rise of the age of secular humanism was the promotion of humanism by the Jesuits. Their influence was profound because of their leading role in education through their network of schools. The establishment of schools as a means of outreach evolved and was not conceived at the inception of the Order. In 1547, scarcely a half-dozen years after the founding of the Society, Ignatius received an unexpected and unsolicited invitation from leading citizens of the city of Messina in Sicilyto found and staff a secondary school for their sons. He accepted, and the school opened the next year.

That same year, thirty members of the senate in Palermo, impressed by what was happening in Messina, petitioned Ignatius for a similar school. Again he acquiesced.

Other schools soon followed — in 1551 schools opened in bothViennaandRome. By the time Ignatius died in 1556, the Jesuits were operating some thirty schools, practically all of them secondary, and just a few years later Polanco would write in the name of the new general to inform Jesuits that education had become the primary ministry of the Society. Meanwhile the school inRome, the “Roman College,” had developed into a university, and, while secondary schools would always be far more numerous, other institutions of higher learning would henceforth be an important part of the Jesuit enterprise. Within a century 300 Jesuit colleges dotted Catholic Europe in “one of the great extensions and consolidations of Renaissance humanism”. By 1773, the Jesuits were operating more than eight hundred universities, seminaries, primary, and secondary schools around the globe. The world had never seen before, nor has it seen since, such an immense network of educational institutions operating on an international basis under a single aegis. Jesuits were called the schoolmasters of Europe during these centuries, not only because of their schools but also for their pre-eminence as scholars and for the thousands of textbooks they composed. Christopher Clavius, S.J., for example, whom Enlightenment philosophers Descartes and Leibniz acknowledged as a source of their inspiration, wrote a standard geometry text used throughout Europe.

Gerónimo Nadal, one of Ignatius’s closest collaborators, was also the founder and first rector of the school in Messina. He drew up the curriculum along lines in accord with those promoted by Renaissance humanists, and this became, along with some of Nadal’s other writings, the first, somewhat indistinct, blueprint for the schools that were springing up everywhere. A number of attempts were made in succeeding decades to come up with a comprehensive Jesuit plan of studies that could be used as a guide in all the Jesuit schools. It was Claudio Acquaviva who was able to bring this long-standing project to completion and officially publish in 1599 the Ratio studiorum that became the Magna Charta of Jesuit education. It included the humanities – literature, history, drama, etc. – as well as philosophy and theology. This meant that the Jesuit Ratio assumed that literary or humanistic subjects could be integrated into the study of professional or scientific subjects; that is, it assumed that the humanistic program of the Renaissance was compatible with the Scholastic program of the Middle Ages. Its basic premises were humanistic, and quite contrary to scriptural Protestant principles. Man’s reason – and not God’s word – was treated by the Jesuit Ratio as the ultimate fountain of knowledge.

The Ratio had impact far beyond Jesuit institutions, truly setting the educational standards for schools in Protestant and Catholic nations alike. It was seen as a proper statement of ideals, methods, and objectives shared broadly by educators in early modernEurope. For the Society of Jesus, the Ratio studiorum symbolized a certain maturing in its  commitment to education, which had great repercussions for the future of Roman Catholicism. The schools were often at the center of the culture of the towns and cities where they were located: typically, they would produce several plays or even ballets per year, and some maintained important astronomical observatories.

Perhaps most profoundly, it meant a special relationship to culture in that the Society as an institution had a systematic relationship to “secular” learning, for its members had to be prepared to teach both the classics of Latin and Greek literature of the humanistic tradition (Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Terence, for example) and the scientific texts of Aristotle in the Scholastic tradition (we must remember that “philosophy” meant to a large extent “natural philosophy,” subjects we call biology, physics, and astronomy). IfJesuits were to teach these subjects, they would also almost perforce begin to write aboutthem, at least to the point of producing textbooks for their students.Ignatius Loyola had mentioned in the Jesuit Constitutions the possibility of “writingbooks useful for the common good.” Few such books were produced, however, until thenumber of schools began to grow and the need for appropriate and inexpensive textbooksfelt. With textbooks in view, Ignatius in the last year of his life went to immense troubleto secure a good press for the Roman College, which was installed and in good workingorder within a few months of his death. Among the first books published by this firstpress operated by the Jesuits was André des Freux’s edition of Martial’s Epigrams (1558)– a book tellingly by a pagan. Within two generations, Jesuits were producing books on agreat scale, a phenomenon that would come to characterize the order. Many of these were textbooks or at least related directly to instruction in the Jesuit classrooms, but othersranged far more broadly and began to touch on almost every imaginable subject. The experience of the Jesuit missionaries in exotic places likeJapan,China, andViet Nam gave, when viewed largely, an extraordinarily cosmopolitan cast to this production. It is highly probable that even without the schools, the Jesuits would have produced a significant number of books, for their counterparts in other religious orders did so. However that may be, the incontrovertible fact is that the schools provided the impetus for an extraordinarily copious production. They also required that the scope of that production be consistently and predictably wide-ranging, for the schools took the Jesuits into just about every conceivable aspect of human culture and made them reflect upon it and come up with something to say. That they did, and their humanistic influence penetrated the world over.

Jesuits in the Protestant nations tended to promote religious toleration and secularism, while those in the Roman Catholic nations tended to urge the maintenance of Roman Catholic Church privileges and suppression of religious dissent. The reasons for this variance are not hard to discern. In both cases the Jesuit Order pursued a policy which was in the best political interest of the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuit Order, even though the Order’s philosophical position was not consistent across national lines. In the Roman Catholic nations the Jesuits promoted Renaissance humanism, whereas the Jesuits in the Protestant nations tended to promote secular humanism as a means to wean the nation away from established Protestantism.

In the Protestant nations an informal coalition evolved of Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, Enlightenment intellectuals, Jews, and other heretical factions in favor of religious toleration and secularism. They did not want to be disadvantaged by the established Protestant religion. Even within the established Protestant churches in the Protestant nations, Enlightenment ideas eventually became popular. As a consequence, “Protestantism” – at least in political terms – became synonymous with religious toleration, in contrast to the suppression of religious dissent which persisted in Roman Catholic nations.

“Protestantism” thereby gradually lost its original meaning among the self-professed Protestants. In the Reformation era, Protestantism had meant structuring and ordering everything in accordance with God’s word. The Bible was treated as the foundation of all knowledge, which it is. This had meant the Ten Commandments were to be upheld by the state, and religious falsehood was to be suppressed. The confessions of the Reformation era uniformly upheld the Establishment Principle. They also upheld such Protestant distinctives as the doctrines of grace. But as “Protestants” abandoned true Protestantism, the very term “Protestant” began to take on new meanings in the minds of men. Even Arminians – whose doctrine of salvation was actually closer to that of the Roman Catholic Church than that of historic Protestantism – became identified with Protestantism. “Protestantism” so called (albeit not the true Protestantism of the Reformation era) swelled with all manner of heretics- from Arminian Methodists to Unitarian Congregationalists to Baptist separatists. As the number of heresies and heretics abounded in the Protestant nations, the movement towards pluralism, tolerationism, and secularism became all the greater.

Freemasonry developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a means to forward the aspirations of the Enlightenment. People of all religious faiths were invited into Masonic lodges as lodge “brothers”. Their vision was of a secular state where people of all religious creeds could be treated equally. They idealized a brotherhood of man, unbroken by religious distinctions.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuit Order only objected to the Enlightenment movement when its effects reverberated to the Roman Catholic nations and Roman Catholic Church privileges became threatened. Roman (or Renaissance) humanism was quite acceptable in the Roman Catholic Church, but secular humanism’s inroads into Roman Catholic nations threatened Roman Catholic interests and privileges. Indeed,within the Roman Catholic Church, the Jesuit Order had perhaps the most to lose by an adoption of secular humanism in the Roman Catholic nations. The war against secular humanism by the Roman Catholic Church included a ban in the eighteenth century on Roman Catholic participation in freemasonry. It is no exaggeration to assert that the Jesuit Order hatched the Enlightenment movement which effectively overturned established Protestantism.

Paving the way for the Enlightenment was a French-born philosopher named Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes sought to prove how, starting from a position of universal doubt, he could through reason arrive at a system of truth. This methodology has earned him the title of the ‘father of modern philosophy.’ This methodology directly contradicted the historic reformed, Biblical view of theologians like Augustine and Calvin whose methodology was instead: ‘I believe in order that I may know’ (or as worded in scripture, ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’). Reformed Christianity stresses man’s inability to attain true knowledge about the fundamental nature of God and man apart from divine revelation, due to man’s sinful corruption. Not surprisingly, Descartes rejected this reformed principle, for he was a devout Roman Catholic, educated in the JesuitCollegeat La Flèche and the University of Poitiers. He was a product of the Jesuit Ratio studiorum. Descartes had significant influence even in Protestant countries, residing much of his life in Hollandand the end of his life inSweden. Descartes’ credibility was certainly enhanced by his significant achievements in mathematics and science.

The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz profoundly stimulated the Enlightenment movement in Germany. Leibniz was born inLeipzigin 1646. Of Lutheran background, he ended his life as a thorough-going humanistic rationalist. Leibniz was the greatest polymath of modern philosophers, making contributions to mathematics, jurisprudence, and history, as well as philosophy. He discovered differential calculus and pioneered symbolic logic. He worked on among other things hydraulic presses, windmills, lamps, submarines, clocks, carriages and water pumps. He traveled extensively, and corresponded with the leading humanists of his day. He was the founder of the academy of Berlin. He wrote books on his rationalistic philosophy. These works influenced Christian von Wolff, whose popularization of the Leibnizian system became the standard academic philosophy in 18th century Germany.

The philosopher who arguably most popularized the Enlightenment among the English speaking peoples was John Locke (1632-1704). Locke was greatly influenced by the humanistic philosophy of Descartes…

The Enlightenment philosophies of Descartes, Leibniz, Locke and others, which really had their foundational origins in Jesuit philosophy, undermined and eventually overwhelmed the Biblical faith in the West. It would take time for the Enlightenment ideals to take root in the constitutions of nations, but once it did, the formerly Protestant states became dominated by secular humanism.

Yet, not all the blessings of the Protestant Reformation were lost in this new era, any more than all the curses of Romanism were lost during the era of Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation helped usher in great industrial and technological revolutions, beginning in the Protestant nations. The products of these technological innovations have consisted not only of weapons of destruction, but also tools for disseminating knowledge, including knowledge of the Bible. The wider distribution of the Bible has thus marked the modern era. The Bible and reformed literature about the Bible has become available in almost every corner of the earth, as communication and transportation have improved. This access to the truth has paved the way for a future Reformation even grander in scope than the Protestant Reformation. But it has also meant mankind is more culpable for refusing to implement scriptural truth in our modern era, with ignorance less an excuse than it was in previous ages.”

WHAT IS IT? Are All Things Sets of Propositions? Wednesday, Dec 28 2011 

I have been chewing on the explanation of this for a number of years now and I think I’ve come to a fairly coherent explanation of what I mean by this as a Clarkian, yet an Orthodox Christian demanding that God and the Creation are distinct in essence.

I believe that this passage by Dr. Clark is the key to understand an Orthodox Clarkian explanation of Creation:

The Biblical Doctrine of Man (The Trinity Foundation: Jefferson, Maryland, 1984),

“Realism of course asserts the real existence of the human genus. This is an idea in God’s mind and it is a real object of knowledge. But it is hard to imagine a Realist identifying the perfect eternal idea with a temporal and imperfect individual. The relationship of Adam to the Idea is precisely the same as the relationship of any other individual man to the Idea. The individuals ‘participate’ in or are all ‘patterned after’ the Idea; but the notion that one individual is ‘physically and numerically one’ with the Idea, or that any other individual is ‘physically and numerically one’ with Adam is enough to send poor Plato to his grave in despair. This misunderstanding of Realism vitiates much of Hodge’s argumentation.” (pg. 49)

This idea, I take to be a set of propositions. These propositions take form in time. They provide the pattern of a created form. The created form is and is not a set of propositions, in distinct senses.  It is, in the sense that the set of propositions for Drake, exist as realities in the mind of God in their own eternal mode, but with reference to me, they are virtual while my created physical form and my rational faculty are the temporal actuality. That is, I am a set of propositions in the sense that I participate in and am patterned after this set of propositions. That set is my definition.

I am not a set of propositions in the sense that my created form is something physical, not something intellectual. What is then something physical? I don’t know positively. My knowledge of the created world is only negative. The operational definition of physical is “that which can be measured”. So what about your rational faculty? That can’t be measured. How do you distinguish between the eternal propositions from your rational faculty that thinks these propositions?  Well, the question itself explains it. My rational faculty is just that, a faculty.

Therefore, there is a sense in which all things are sets of propositions. However, that does not mean that the metaphysical explanation of things terminates upon the intellectual/propositional. There is an aspect to created things that is not subject to definition. Therefore, I take the opposite position from the tradition of Pseudo Dionysius and the Scholastics where GOD is not subject to definition (Therefore knowledge of God is only negative), but the created world is most definitely an object of knowledge and an utter obsession.  I affirm that God has revealed himself but has not given us much information about the created world.

The Dating of the Book of Daniel; The Conservative Theory Defended; The Liberal Maccabean Theory Refuted in Gleason Archer, ed. Drake Sunday, Dec 25 2011 

Whenever I meet an atheist who wants empirical evidence for God and the divinity of the Biblical canon I offer him a very traditional approach that God himself appeals to in Isa 44:6 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 ‘Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,  From the time that I established the ancient nation.  And let them declare to them the things that are coming  And the events that are going to take place. Fulfilled prophecy; especially the Book of Daniel.  The prophetic arguments from the book of Daniel have driven the secular world insane. They affirm that Daniel had to be written after the events it prophesied because an admission that it was written before these events is an inevitable return to the Christian Church as the principle of unity in the world. This they cannot believe, so they resurrected and old theory from the pagan philosopher Porphyry that Daniel is a forgery and a lie. Originally Porphyry was refuted by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, Appollinarius and Methodius.  Jerome catalogues this in the Prologue of his Commentary on Daniel. Sadly, these works were lost to the advantage of the modern Secular Establishment. Scholars have made some arguments that there is hope these will be found.  However, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. in his A Survey of Old Testament Introduction took the task upon himself to answer the arguments of the liberals against the book of Daniel.

The liberal theory is that Daniel was written by an unknown author during the life of  Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215 B.C. to 164 B.C.) known as the Late Date Theory or the Maccabean Date Theory. The following extended quote is from A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, JR.  (Moody Press: Chicago, 1964, 1974 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago Revised Edition)

“there is no good reason for denying to the sixth-century Daniel the composition of the entire work. This represents a collection of his memoirs made at the end of a long and eventful career which included government service from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the 590s to the reign of Cyrus the Great in the 530s. The appearance of Persian technical terms indicates a final recension of these memoirs at a time when Persian terminology had already infiltrated into the vocabulary of Aramaic. The most likely date for the final edition of the book, therefore, would be about 530 B.C. (pg. 387)…The Jewish canon places Daniel among the Kethubhim or Hagiographa, rather than among the prophets. This is interpreted [by the liberal-DS] to mean that the book must have been written later than all the canonical prophets…But it should be noted that some of the documents in the Kethubhim…were of great antiquity, such as the book of Job, the Davidic Psalms, and the writings of Solomon. (pg. 388)…It is fair to say that the weakest spot in the whole structure of the Maccabean theory is to be found in the identification of the fourth empire predicted in chapter 2. In order to maintain their position, the late-date theorists have to interpret this fourth empire as referring to the kingdom of the Macedonians or Greeks founded by Alexander the Great around 330 B.C. This means that the third empire must be identified with the Persian realm established by Cyrus the Great, and the second empire has to be short-lived Median power, briefly maintained by the legendary Darius the Mede. According to this interpretation, then, the head of gold in chapter 2 represents the Chaldean empire, the breast of silver the Median empire, the belly and thighs of brass the Persian empire, and the legs of iron the Greek empire…That is to say, the text of Daniel itself gives the strongest indications that the author considered the Medes and Persians as components of the one and same empire, and that despite his designation of King Darius as ‘the Mede,’ he never entertained the notion that there was at any time a separate and distinct Median empire….The third empire is represented as a leopard with four wings and four heads. There is no record that the Persian empire was divided into four parts, but it is well known that the empire of Alexander the Great separated into four parts subsequent to his death…the natural inference, therefore , would be that the leopard represented the Greek empire. The fourth kingdom is presented as a fearsome ten-horned beast, incomparably more powerful than the others and able to devour the whole earth. The ten horns strongly suggest the ten toes of the image described in chapter 2, and it should be noted that these toes are described in chapter 2 as having close connection with the two legs of iron. The two legs can easily be identified with the Roman empire, which in the time of Diocletian divided into the eastern and the Western Roman empires. But there is no way in which they can be reconciled with the history of the Greek empire which followed upon Alexander’s death. In Daniel 8 we have further symbolism to aid us in this identification of empires two and three. There a two-horned ram (one horn of which is higher than the other, just as Persia overshadowed Media in Cyrus’ empire) is finally overthrown by a he-goat, who at first shows but one horn (easily identified with Alexander the Great) but subsequently sprouts four horns (i.e., Macedon, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt), our of which there finally develops a little horn, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. From the standpoint of the symbolism of chapters 2, 7 and 8, therefore, the identification of the four empires with Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome presents a perfect correspondence, whereas the identifications involved in the Maccabean date theory present the most formidable problems and discrepancies (pg. 405-406)…Two other considerations should be adduced to show that the author regarded the Medes and Persians as constituting the one and same empire. In Daniel 6, Darius is said to be bound by ‘the law of the Medes and Persians,’ so that he could not revoke the decree consigning Daniel to the lion’s den. If the author regarded Darius as ruler of an independent Median empire earlier in time than the Persian, it is impossible to explain why he would have been bound by the laws of the Persians. Second, we have the evidence of the handwriting on the wall as interpreted by Daniel in 5:28… ‘Thy kingdom is divided , and given to the Medes and Persians.’…This can only mean that according to the author, the Chaldean empire was removed from Belshazzar as the last representative of the first empire and given to the Medes and Persians who constituted the second empire. This cannot mean that the rule was given to the Medes and only later to be transmitted to the Persians, because the significant word which appeared in the handwriting on the wall was quite specifically the word ‘Persia’…we must concluded that the fourth empire indeed represented Rome. If, then, the fourth empire of chapter 2, as corroborated by the other symbolic representations of chapter 7, clearly pointed forward to the establishment of the Roman empire, it can only follow that we are dealing here with genuine predictive prophecy and not a mere vaticinium ex eventu. According to the Maccabean date theory, Daniel was composed between 168 and 165 B.C., whereas the Roman empire did not commence (for the Jews at least) until 63 B.C., when Pompey the Great took over that part of the Near East which included Palestine…the Romans had not had still not advanced beyond the limits of Europe by 165, except to establish a vassal kingdom in Asia Minor and a protectorate over Egypt. But certainly, as things stood in 165 B.C., no human being could have predicted with any assurance  that the Hellenistic monarchies of the Near East would be engulfed by the new power which had arisen in the West…this one circumstance alone, then, that Daniel predicts the Roman empire, is sufficient to overthrow the entire Maccabean date hypothesis (pg. 406-407)…It should also be pointed out that the Maccabean date theory fails to explain how the book of Daniel ever came to be accepted by the later Jews as Holy Scripture…There can be no doubt that the description given in Daniel 11:40-45 relative to the latter end  of the little horn does not at all correspond to the manner in which Antiochus Epiphanese met his death…Those who espouse the Liberal theory can only allege that the Maccabean author of Daniel was unsuccessful in his effort to predict the manner of Antiochus’ downfall…Yet, if this was actually the case it is impossible to conceive how the Jews could have continued to regard this writing as canonical or authoritative, since it contained false prophecy. (pg. 408)

The conservative theory states that the one mentioned in Daniel 11:40-45 is the future antichrist. Jamieson Fausset Brown points out this embarrassment for the liberal interpretation, commenting on Dan 11:40,

“40. The difficulty of reconciling this with Antiochus’ history is that no historian but PORPHYRY [Who is the originator of the Liberal theory-DS ] mentions an expedition of his into Egypt towards the close of his reign. This Daniel 11:40 , therefore, may be a recapitulation summing up the facts of the first expedition to Egypt (171-170 B.C.), in Daniel 11:22 Daniel 11:25 ; and Daniel 11:41 , the former invasion of Judea, in Daniel 11:28 ; Daniel 11:42 Daniel 11:43 , the second and third invasions of Egypt (169 and 168 B.C). inDaniel 11:23 Daniel 11:24 Daniel 11:29 Daniel 11:30 . AUBERLEN takes rather PORPHYRY’S statement, that Antiochus, in the eleventh year of his reign (166-165 B.C.), invaded Egypt again, and took Palestine on his way. The “tidings” ( Daniel 11:44 ) as to the revolt of tributary nations then led him to the East. PORPHYRY’S statement that Antiochus starting from Egypt took Arad in Judah, and devastated all Phoenicia, agrees with Daniel 11:45 ; then he turned to check Artaxias, king of Armenia. He died in the Persian town Tabes, 164 B.C., as both POLYBIUS and PORPHYRY agree. Doubtless, antitypically, the final Antichrist, and its predecessor Mohammed, are intended, to whom the language may be more fully applicable than to Antiochus the type. The Saracen Arabs “of the south” “pushed at” the Greek emperor Heraclius, and deprived him of Egypt and Syria. But the Turks of “the north” not merely pushed at, but destroyed the Greek empire; therefore more is said of them than of the Saracens. Their “horsemen” are specified, being their chief strength. Their standards still are horse tails. Their “ships,” too, often gained the victory over Venice, the great naval power of Europe in that day. They “overflowed” Western Asia, and then “passed over” into Europe, fixing their seat of empire at Constantinople under Mohammed II [NEWTON]. ”

11 Biblical Ways to Find Contentment and Humility Under Sufferings by Thomas Boston, ed. Drake Friday, Dec 23 2011 

The Crook in the Lot by Thomas Boston Pages 101-110

“I. General Directions.


1. Fix it in your heart to seek some spiritual improvement of the conduct of Providence towards you, Micah vi. 9. Till once your heart get a set that way, your humiliation is not to be expected, Hosea xiv. 9. But nothing is more reasonable, if we would act either like men or Christians, than to aim at turning’ what is so grievous to the flesh unto the profit of the spirit; that if we are losers on one hand, we may be gainers on another.

2. Settle the matter of your eternal salvation, in the first place, by betaking yourself to Christ, and taking God for your God in him, according to the gospel-offer, Hos. ii, 19.; Heb. viii. 10. Let your humbling circumstances move you to this, that while the creature dries up, you may go to the Fountain : for it is impossible to reach due humiliation under his mighty hand, without faith in him as your God and friend, Heb. xi. 6.; 1 John iv. 19.

3. Use the means of soul-humbling in the faith of the promise, Psal. xxviii. 7. Moses, smiting the rock in faith of the promise, made water gush out, which otherwise would not at all have appeared. Let us do likewise in dealing with our rocky hearts. They must be laid on the soft bed of the gospel, and struck there, as Joel ii. 13. ” Turn to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful:” or they will never kindly break or fall in humiliation,

II. Particular Directions

1. Assure yourselves that there are no circumstances that you are in so humbling, but you may get your heart acceptably brought down to them,

1 Cor. x. 13. ” But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” This is truth, 2 Cor. xii. 9. ” My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” And you should be persuaded of it, with application to yourselves, if ever you would reach the end. Phil. iv. 13. ” I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” God allows you to be persuaded of it, whatever is your weakness and the difficulty of the task. ” For our sakes this is written, That he that ploweth should plow in hope ; and he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope.” 1 Cor. ix. 10. And the belief thereof is a piece of the life of faith, 2 Tim. ii. 1. If you have no hope of success, your endeavours, as they will be heartless, so they will be vain. ” Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees.” Heb xii. 12.

2 Whatever hand is, or is not, in your humbling circumstances, do you take God for your party, and consider yourselves therein as under his mighty hand, Micah vi. 9. Men in their humbling circumstances overlook God ; so they find not themselves called to humility under them ; they fix their eyes on the creature instrument, and instead of humility, their hearts rise. But take him for your party that ye may remember the battle, and do no more. Job xii. 8.

3. Be much in the thoughts of God’s infinite greatness ; consider his holiness and majesty, to awe you into the deepest humiliation, Psa. vi. 3—5. Job met with many humbling providences in his case, but he was never sufficiently humbled under them, till the Lord made a new discovery of himself unto him, in his infinite majesty and greatness. He kept his ground against his friends, and stood to his points, till the Lord took that method with him. It was begun with thunder, Job xxxvii. 1, 2. Then followed God’s voice out of the whirlwind, chap, xxxviii. 1, whereon Job is brought down, chap. xl. 4, 5. It is renewed till he is farther humbled, chap, xlii. 5, 6. ” Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

4. Inure yourselves silently to admit mysteries in the conduct of Providence towards you, which you are not able to comprehend, but will adore, Rom. xi. 33. ” O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” That was the first word God said to Job xxxviii. 2. ” Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge ?” It went to his heart, stuck with him, and he comes over it again, chap. xlii. 3, as that which particularly brought him to his knees, to the dust. Even in those steps of Providence, which we seem to see far into, we may well allow there are some mysteries beyond what we see. And in those which are perplexing and puzzling, sovereignty should silence us; his infinite wisdom should satisfy though we cannot see.

5. Be much in the thoughts of your own sinfulness, Job xl. 4. ” Behold I am vile, what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.” It is overlooking of that which gives us so much ado with humbling circumstances. While the eyes are held that they cannot see sin, the heart riseth against them ; but when they are opened, it falls Wherefore, whenever God is dealing with you in humbling dispensations, turn your eyes, upon that occasion, on the sinfulness of your nature, heart, and life, and that Will help forward your humiliation.

6. Settle it in your heart, that there is need of all the humbling circumstances you are put in. This is truth, 1 Pet. i. 6. ” Though now for a season (if need be) ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations.” God brings no needless trials upon us, afflicts none but as their need requires, Lam. iii. 33. ” For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.” That is an observable difference betwixt our earthly and our heavenly Father’s correction, Heb. xii. 10. ” They, after their own pleasure ; but He for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.” Look to the temper of your own hearts and nature, how apt to be lifted up, to forget God, to be carried away with the vanities of the world: what foolishness is bound up in your heart! Thus you will see the need of humbling circumstances for ballast, and of the rod for the fool’s back ; and if at any time you cannot see that need, believe it on the ground of God’s infinite wisdom, that does nothing in vain.

7. Believe a kind design of Providence in them towards you. God calls us to this, as the key that opens the heart under them, Rev. iii. 19. Satan suggests suspicions to the contrary, as the bar which may hold it shut, 2 Kings vi. 33. ” This evil is of the Lord, what should I wait for the Lord any longer?” As long as the suspicion of an ill design in them against us reigns, the creature will, like the worm at the man’s feet, put itself in the best posture of defence it can, and harden itself in sorrow: but the faith of a kind design will cause it to open out itself in humility before him.

Case. ” O ! if I knew there were a kind design in it, I would willingly bear it, although there were more of it; but I fear a ruining design of Providence against me therein.”

Ans. Now, what word of God, or discovery from Heaven, have you to ground these fears upon? None at all, but from hell, 1 Cor. x. 13. What think you the design towards you in the gospel is ? Can you believe no kind design in all the words of grace there heaped up ? What is that, I pray, but black unbelief in its hue of hell, flying in the face of the truth of God, and making him a liar, Isa. Iv. 1. 1 John v. 10, 11. The gospel is a breathing of love and good-will to the world of mankind sinners, Titus ii. 11., iii. 3, 4., 1 John iv. 14., John iii. 17. But ye believe it not, in that case, more than devils believe it. If ye can believe a kind design there, ye must believe it in your humbling circumstances too; for the design of Providence cannot be contrary to the design of the gospel; but contrariwise, the latter is to help forward to the other.

8. Think with yourselves, that this life is the time of trial for heaven, James i. 12. ” Blessed is the man that endureth temptation ; for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.” And therefore there should be a welcoming of humbling circumstances in that view, ver. 2. ” Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.” If there is an honourable office, or beneficial employment to be bestowed, men strive to be taken on trial for it, in hope they may be thereupon legally admitted to it. Now God takes trial of men for heaven by humbling circumstances, as the whole Bible teacheth ; and shall men be so very loth to stoop to them ? I would ask you,

(1.) Is it nothing to you to stand a candidate for glory, to be put on trial for heaven ? Is there not an honour in it, an honour which all the saints have had? James v. 10, 11. ” Behold we count them happy that endure,” &c. And a fair prospect in it, 2 Cor. iv. 17. ” For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” Do but put the case, that God should overlook you in that case, as one whom it is needless ever to try on that head; that he should order you your portion in this life with full ease, as one that is to get no more of him; what would that be ?

(2 ) What a vast disproportion is there between your trials and the future glory ! Your most humbling circumstances, how light are they in comparison of the weight of it! The longest continuance of them is but for a moment, compared with that eternal weight. Alas ! there is much unbelief at the root of all our uneasiness under our humbling circumstances. Had we a clearer view of the other world, we should not make so much of either the smiles or frowns of this.

(3.) What think ye of coming foul off in the trial of your humbling circumstances ? Jer. vi. 29, 30. ” The lead is consumed of the fire ; the founder melteth in vain; for the wicked are not plucked away. Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.” That the issue of it be only, that your heart appear of such a temper as by no means to be humbled ; and that therefore you must and shall be taken off them, while yet no humbling appears. I think the awfulness of the dispensation is such, as might set us to our knees to deprecate the lifting us up from our humbling circumstances, ere our hearts are humbled, Isa. i. 5., Ezek. xxiv. 13.

9. Think with yourselves, how, by humbling circumstances, the Lord prepares us for heaven, ” Giving thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light,” Col. i. 12.; 2 Cor. v. 5. The stones and timber are laid down, turned over and over, and hewed, ere they be set up in the building ; and not set up just as they come out of the quarry and wood. Were they capable of a choice, such of them as would refuse the iron tool would be refused a place in the building. Pray, how think ye to be made meet for heaven, by the warm sunshine of this world’s ease, and getting all your will here? Nay, Sirs, that would put your mouth out of taste for the joys of the other world. Vessels of dishonour are fitted for destruction that way ; but vessels of honour for glory by humbling circumstances. I would here say,

(1.) Will nothing please you but two heavens, one here, another hereafter? God has secured one heaven for the saints, one place where they shall get all their will, wish, and desire; where there shall be no weight on them to hold them down ; and that is in the other world. But ye must have it both here and there, or ye cannot digest it. Why do you not quarrel too, that there are not two summers in one year; two days in the twenty-four hours? The order of the one heaven is as firm as that of the years and days, and ye cannot reverse it: therefore, choose ye whether you will take your night or your day first, your winter or your summer, your heaven here or hereafter.

(2.) Without being humbled with humbling circumstances in this life, ye are not capable of heaven, 2 Cor. v. 5. ” Now, he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God.” You may indeed lie at ease- here in a bed of sloth and dream of heaven, big with hopes of a fool’s paradise, wishing to cas yourselves just out of Delilah’s lap into Abraham’s bosom; but except ye be humbled, ye are not capable,

(1.) Of the Bible-heaven, that heaven described in the Old and New Testaments. Is not that heaven a lifting up in due time ? But, how shall ye be lifted up that are never well got down? Where will your tears be to be wiped away? What place will there be for your triumph, who will not fight the good fight ? How can it be a rest to you, who cannot submit to labour?

(2.) Of the saints’ heaven, Rev. vii. 14. ” And he said unto me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” This answers the question about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the saints with them there: they were brought down to the dust by humbling circumstances, and out of these they came before the throne. How can ye ever think to be lifted up with them, ‘with whom ye cannot think to be brought down?

(3.) Of Christ’s heaven, Heb. xii. 2. ” Who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of God.” O ! consider how the Forerunner made his way, Luke xxiv. 26. ” Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” And lay your account with it, that if ye get where he is, ye must go thither as he went, Luke ix. 23. ” And he said, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”

10. Give up at length with your towering hopes from this world, and confine them to the world to come. Be as pilgrims and strangers here, looking for your rest in heaven, and not till ye come there. There is a prevailing evil, Isa. lvii. 10. ” Thou art wearied in the greatness of thy way : yet saidst thou not, There is no hope.” So the Babel-building is still continued, though it has fallen down again and again: for men say, ” The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones ; the sycamores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars,” Isa. ix. 10. This makes humbling work very longsome ; we are so hard to quit hold of the creature, to fall off from the breast and be weaned : but fasten on the other world, and let your hold of this go ; so shall ye ” be humbled” indeed under ” the mighty hand.” The faster you hold the happiness of that world, the easier will it be to accommodate yourselves to your humbling circumstances here.

11. Make use of Christ in all his offices, for your humiliation under your humbling circumstances. That only is kindly humiliation that comes in this way, Zech. xii. 10. ” And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn,”&c. This you must do by trusting on him for that effect,

(1.) As a Priest for you. You have a conscience full of guilt, and that will make one uneasy in any circumstances; and far more in humbling circumstances ; it will be like a thorn in the shoulder on which a burden is laid. But the blood of Christ will purge the conscience, draw out the thorn, give ease, Isa. xxxiii. 24. and fit for service, doing or suffering, Heb. ix. 14. ” How much more shall the blood of Christ—purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ?”

(2.) As your Prophet to teach you. We have need to be taught rightly to discern our humbling circumstances; for, often we mistake them so far, that they prove an oppressive load ; whereas, could we rightly see them, just as God sets them to us, they would be humbling, but not so oppressive. Truly we need Christ, and the light of his word and Spirit, to let us see our cross and trial as well as our duty, Psal. xxv. 9, 10.

(3.) As your King. You have a stiff heart, loth to bow, even in humbling circumstances: take a lesson from Moses what to do in such a case, Exod. xxxiv. 9. ” And he said, Let my Lord, I pray thee, go amongst us, (for it is a stiff-necked people,) and pardon our iniquity and our sin.” Put it in his hand that is strong and mighty, Psa. xxiv. 8. He is able to cause it to melt, and, like wax before the fire, turn to the seal.

Think on these directions, in order to put them in practice, remembering: if ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. Remember humbling work is a work that will fill your hand, while you live here, and that you cannot come to the end of it till death; and humbling circumstances will attend you, while you are in this lower world. A change of them ye may get; but a freedom from them ye cannot, till ye come to heaven. So the humbling circumstances of our imperfections, relations, contradictions, afflictions, uncertainties, and sinfulness, will afford matter of exercise to us while here.”

Gordon Clark’s Philosophy of History Related to Eschatology, ed. Drake Tuesday, Dec 20 2011 

The following is from Gordon H. Clark’s A Christian View of Men And Things (Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 1952, 1980, Fourth edition 2005), pages 67-69.

“First, God controls History…[FN] 37. Psalm 33:10-11; Isaiah 45:7; Daniel 4:35. Compare Nehemiah 9:6; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11…The second principle is not logically distinct from the first: It is a special application of it; but the application is of such importance that it deserves to be mentioned separately. God has not only controlled history so far, but he will bring it to its end and culmination…[FN] 38. 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Compare Acts 1:11; Acts 3:19-21; Revelation 1:7… The third principle , instead of being subsidiary, makes the previous two subsidiary to itself. God not only controls history and brings it to its culmination; God himself acts in history…The Deists of the eighteenth century granted that God made the world and established its natural law, but then God left it alone. It was argued that a machine in need of constant tinkering is no compliment to its master’s skill…But if God created the world for the purpose (not necessarily the only purpose) of having personal relations with his creatures, the idea of a Deistic God who does not need to ‘interfere’ makes no sense….In conclusion one may ask, what has all this discussion proved? The answer is, the discussion has proved nothing…there are underlying problems that must be settled. These problems have not been faced in the preceding discussion. Therefore, neither the secular nor the Christian view has been proved.”

In my studies of this book and Clark’s Historiography this is as much positive construction as I could find from him. So what do we do with the historical events of the past 1944 years since the close of the canon around 67 A.D . (Thus Nigel Lee, John’s Revelation Unveiled, pg.2 ) ? My position is that we put these events in the category of Fallible Opinion-Operation-Utility.  So does that mean that our interpretations of Revelation are fallible? Yes. Nigel Lee begins his interpretations of Revelation with the word, “probably”. I read few exception in his Commentary on Revelation.  Does that mean that the Pope is probably the antichrist and not infallibly? Yes. So can’t Preterism and Futurism, get into this category?   No. There are exegetical impossibilities all over those systems. 1 John 2:18-19 mentions the antichrists being in the Church and apostatizing from it. This is why vs. 22 cannot mean that the antichrist never had anything to do with Christianity. He is someone who is in the Church and defects from it, just like 2 Thess 2. In 2 Thess 2:4 the “Temple of God” where his office dwells is not the temple of Solomon. The Temple mentioned in 2 Thess 2 is the Greek word naos. Every time Paul refers to the Church as the “Temple of God”(1 Cor 3:1617, 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:21, etc.) he uses this word naos. Without exception, every time Paul refers to the physical Temple of Solomon he uses the word hieron not naos! Without exception! Preterism’s assertion of Nero as the Antichrist and Futurism’s many attempted assertions that Antichrist is some pagan Politician are equally exegetically impossible.   So could there be another theory besides Nigel Lee’s that could probably be true?  Yes, but there simply is no history of this theory and until it comes out Nigel Lee’s is the only one that can square with what has been demonstrably proven true from the Bible.

Know Your Enemy; Francis Nigel Lee’s Exposition of Revelation 13 and 17; The Beast and the Whore Revealed to be the Roman Papacy Riding the International Scarlet Beast of Nations, ed. Drake Sunday, Dec 18 2011 

The following is based upon John’s Revelation Unveiled by Francis Nigel Lee (Ligstryders: Lynnwoodrif, South Africa)

Revelation 13

 1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

Nigel Lee says,

“As the Calvinistic Geneva Bible comments about this first Beast of Revelation chapter thirteen: “Here is a description of the Roman Empire, which stands in [or consists of] cruelty and tyranny.”The ‘seven Heads’ signify “Rome because it was first governed by seven Kings or Emperors after Nero, and also is compassed about with seven  mountains.” And the Roman Empire’s ‘ten Horns’ are said to “signify many provinces.” (pg. 153)…Now here, the Post-Constantinian Roman Beast standing on the edge of the Wilderness (and seen at the end of Revelation chapter twelve) [The Dragon/The Devil-DS] seems to call forth a similar Beast from the Sea (seen at the beginning of Revelation chapter thirteen). At any rate, according to the Calvinistic Geneva Bible, the First Beast of Revelation  thirteen having blasphemy upon its Heads and wearing crowns upon  its Horns  is not Nero but “seven Kings or Emperors after Nero.” (For the Calvinistic Geneva Bible is not Preteristic but Historicalistic.) Revelation thirteen’s Post-Neronian blasphemous Beast wearing ten crowns not on its seven Heads but upon its ten Horns (which grew out of only one of the later Heads) [Dan. 7:7,24; Rev. 17:3,10-12; See also Footnote 581 of Nigel Lee], strongly resembles the red and dragonlike creature described at the beginning of Revelation chapter twelve. For both have seven Heads and ten crowns; both are infused with the evil spirit of that old Dragon and Serpent the Devil; and both are apparently aspects of the Ancient Roman World. Indeed, both Revelation twelve’s red and dragonlike creature and Revelation thirteen’s first Beast are ‘ancestors’ also of Revelation thirteen’s second Beast (which looks like a lamb but which speaks like a dragon). More-over, together with that second ‘lamb-like’ Beast they are ‘ancestors’ also of the later or third and “scarlet-coloured Beast full of names of blasphemy, having seven Heads and ten Horns” the Beast that then carries, and then carries, the Papal-Romish Whore. (pg. 154)

 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; 4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?” 5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

 7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. 9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear. 10 If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints. 11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. 12 He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. 13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. 14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life.15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is s ix hundred and sixty-six.

Nigel Lee says,

“The Pope restored the fallen Roman Empire…. It [the thus-restored Empire] is an image of the Roman Empire, rather than the body of the Empire as it once was. Nevertheless, he [the Pope] puts spirit and life into this image…and actually operates it to some extent. This is the image [of that] which was wounded, but did live” or still kept on surviving nevertheless…Now the red and dragonlike monster at the beginning of Revelation chapter twelve wears seven crowns upon its seven Heads. The latter, seven mountains and seven Kings, represent Pre-Constantinian Pagan Rome. Thus Tertullian, Victorinus, Pareus, Mede, the Calvinistic Dordt Dutch Bible, Tillinghast, Goodwin, and Matthew Henry etc. Yet the Roman ‘Sea Beast’ at the Beginning of Revelation chapter thirteen no longer wears its crowns upon its seven Heads. Nor does it have only seven but fully ten crowns. Indeed, it wears those ten crowns not upon its seven Heads but upon its ten Horns apparently all of which grow out of only one of the Heads  its seventh or youngest and latest Head which succeeded the previous ones. [With passing time the horns and crowns get consolidated-DS] The great Puritan, Rev. Professor Dr. Joseph Mede, points this out. So too does Hengstenberg: “The ten Horns [in Revelation 13:1], which denote ten Kings (chapter 17:12)  that is, ten Kingdoms do not exist along with the Heads [alias all seven Heads]. But they sit upon the seventh Head.” [Nigel Lee, pg. 155-DS]…This clearly points to an Early-Mediaeval tenfold dismemberment or “deadly wound[ing]” of the only-nominally-christianized Roman Empire after the Fall of Rome in the fifth century A.D. Thus: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, the Venerable Bede, Walafrid Strabo, Waldo, Luther, Melanchthon, Knox, and many other Theologians.” [Nigel Lee, pg. 156-DS]…

“So this first Roman monster alias the Sea-Beast is immediately followed and kept ‘alive’ by the second (or ‘lamb-like) Beast’  mentioned in the latter half of Revelation thirteen. This second Beast, the Papacy which looks like a two-horned lamb but speaks like a dragon revives and perpetuates the commemoration of the first Roman monster alias the Sea-Beast.

The next Roman monster (of Revelation chapter seventeen) is the international political Beast of “peoples and multitudes and Nations and tongues” after the Papal-Romish scarlet Whore (alias the ‘lamb-like Beast’ of Revelation thirteen) has mounted it and sought to steer it particularly from the time of the papal crowning of Emperor Charlemagne at the beginning of the ninth century onward. [Nigel Lee, pg. 157-DS]

Second. This continuity between the various Roman Beasts of Revelation chapters twelve and thirteen and seventeen, however although it applies to Rome throughout most of the period of her historical development applies not only to Rome. It also reaches back even to Ancient Babylon itself and even stretches forward to the religious establishments and/or political dictatorships also of today and tomorrow.

For the Beast mentioned at the beginning of Revelation chapter thirteen, does in fact symbolize all of the successive heathen World Empires of the past (and perhaps all those of the future too). For like all four of Daniel’s Beasts, the First Beast of Revelation thirteen also rose up “out of the Sea” out of the troubled Heathen World….

For, as the Calvinistic Geneva Bible rightly comments: “By these Beasts are signified the Macedonians, Persians and Chaldeans whom the Romans overcame.” Yet throughout, “the Dragon” alias Satan himself gave the Babylonian-Medopersian-Grecian-Roman World-imperial Beast both its religious as well as its political power. For the Devil gave both the Beast and its throne or “its seat” very “great authority.”As the Calvinistic Geneva Bible once again comments, the Dragon which gave the First Beast of Revelation thirteen its power, “is the Devil.” [Nigel Lee, pg. 158-DS]…

Third. We are told that but one of the seven Heads of this ‘Antichristian’ Beast, was then “wounded to death.” Here again, inasmuch as this was a deadly wound, the supposition is that the seven Heads of the Beast were successive rather than contemporaneous  and that the first six Heads were by then all defunct. For otherwise, the remaining six Heads if they themselves had still been functioning could easily have kept the Beast alive. And in that case, its wound would then not have been “deadly” or mortal. Yet being successive, the seven Heads probably signify not merely seven Roman Emperors. But as can be seen from the other lion-like and leopard-like and bear-like and dragon-like parts of that same Beast the latter far rather seems to represent seven successive World Empires. Accordingly, the Head that was “wounded to death” at that time was the Roman Head of a successive series of seven Ancient World Empires. Such would then be: the Egyptian, the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, the Pagan-Roman, and the modern Papal Empire. For the wounded Head is the sixth or Roman Head that was already ruling in John’s own day. [Nigel Lee, pg. 159-DS]…

Fourth. The international political Beast’s sixth or Pagan-Roman Head endured from the fall of the Grecian Empire prior to 64 B.C., right down to the emergence of the lamb-like Beast alias the Papacy after the destruction of Rome at the hands of the Goths in the fifth century A.D. This shows that it was during this time that the Roman Head (as distinct from the Beast-as such alias the successive series of World Empires), was “wounded to death.” Indeed, it was only during that (Gothic) age that the Beast was now said to be rising up out of the Sea the great Sea of Nations. And it was only after this Fall of Rome to the Goths that the previously-monolithic Roman Empire began to break up into the ten provinces or kingdoms of Early-Mediaeval Western Europe represented by the Beast’s ten Horns each wearing a crown.

Certainly the Pre-Constantinian Pagan-Roman Empire was also wounded to death in principle when Christ Himself was wounded to death in practice before He rose again three days later. And, again like the resurrected Christ Who revived after His death also the ‘resurrected’ Beast’s deadly “wound was healed.”This occurred when the Pagan-Roman Empire remarkably continued for centuries, even after Calvary. Yet this is not one of the many events to which Revelation thirteen is referring. Once more. The Roman Beast was later yet again “wounded to death” at its nominal christianization during the fourth century  after Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. However, even this “deadly wound was healed” in the subsequent apostasization of much of the Visible Christian Church after Emperor Theodosius (thus Matthew Poole), and under the influence of wicked Emperors such as Julian the Apostate and specially the cruel Phocas. Thus the Roman Empire was “wounded to death” by the Fall of Rome to the Goths in A.D. 476. This is perhaps the central meaning of the text here at this point. [I am looking forward to the present state of things when our collapsing economy in the USA will have to submit itself to Rome and in so doing the Pope’s wound will be healed again-DS]

However, even that barbarian and “deadly wound” was “healed” once more. That occurred when political Rome was ‘resurrected from the dead’  and re-emerged under the Papacy as the so-called ‘Holy Roman Empire’ with its ten Kingdoms of Europe (namely England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe). The above-mentioned ten Kingdoms do seem to be represented here by the Beast’s ten crowned Horns or Hings or Kingdoms. For those ten Kingdoms grew precisely out of the very Head the sixth or Roman one which received the deadly wound. [Nigel Lee, pg. 160-DS]…

It is, therefore, particularly this A.D. 476 wounding which is probably being referred to here. For historically, it was precisely after the division of the later Roman Empire into ten Romish Kingdoms since 476A.D. that the deadly wound was indeed healed  particularly by the next mentioned and ‘lamb-like’ Beast of the Romish Papacy…”From that demise, the Antichrist finally brought forth his kingdom when Emperor Justinian around 550 drove off these barbarian Nations…and exalted the Bishop of Rome anew, whom the cruel Emperor Phocas pronounced to be Universal Bishop [alias sole Pope] in the year 606[-666f A.D.]. “Thereby the wound in the Head of the Beast was again healed, and he was revered among all Nations…. This wound was fully healed by Pepin and Charlemagne, who around 700-800 enthroned the Bishop of Rome in his full possession when the ten Kings who arose with him added their power to him.”…

Note that after the attention-demanding Islamic scourge had been stopped in France in A.D. 732 by Charles Martel, his son Pepin the Short had his own coronation approved by Pope Zacharias…[Nigel Lee, pg. 161-DS]…

Indeed, that was to be followed by Pope Leo III’s coronation of Pepin’s son Charles as the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne in A.D. 800 in return for Charlemagne’s recognition of the Pope as the ultimate Head of all temporal and political power. By the time of Charlemagne’s death in A.D. 814 his ‘Holy Roman Empire’ embraced Northern Italy and Spain, France,Belgium, the Netherlands, and much of Germany and Austria. At that same time, the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire comprehended the Balkans, Asia Minor, and Southern Italy. And the Islamic Empire then stretched from India through to Northwest Africa and on into Southern Spain.

The so-called ‘Holy Roman Empire’ lasting from the time of the first clearly-recorded Pope (the 590-604 Gregory) in the seventh almost down to the sixteenth century and the Reformation was powerful. In conjunction with its papal teammate, “there was given to it a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. And power was given to it to continue forty-two months” during which time the true saints would be persecuted…

Sixth. This Sea-Beast is political Rome and the continuation of the Fourth Beast in Daniel’s vision. The Beast blasphemously demands political homage throughout the then-known World of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ (sic). Yet the Beast has power for only ‘forty-two months.’ For, as theCalvinistic Geneva Bible rightly comments: “Antichrist’s time and power, is limited.” (Nigel Lee, pg. 162-DS)…

The lamb-like Beast would come up not as any one particular Pope but as the centuries-lasting institution of the Babylonish-Roman-Romish Papacy. It would finally include even all of her romanizing Pseudo-Protestant daughters which themselves later apostasize from Biblical Protestantism…[Nigel Lee, pg. 165-DS]…Rome’s Pope alias the ‘Lamb-like-Beast’ alias the Babylonish Whore “exercises all the power of the First Beast” and “causes the Earth and those who dwell there to bow down to the [First] Beast…And the Papal Beast wields the tyranny of image-worship or idolatry over the people. [Nigel Lee, pg. 166-DS]…Now this Second and ‘lamb-like’ Beast demands homage and obeisance. He gives a “mark” to his slaves. Here the Calvinistic Geneva Bible comments that the Papacy’s “chrismatories, graisings, vows, oaths and shavings  are signs” or marks of submission to him. [Nigel Lee, pg. 167-DS]…Now many have identified the “666” in Rev. 13:18 with Lateinos alias ‘the Latin one’ and/or Romith alias ‘the Roman one’ and/or Papa alias ‘Pope.’ [Nigel Lee, pg. 169-DS]

Revelation 17

 1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality.” 3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, 5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” 6And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly. 7 And the angel said to me, “Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

 8 “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast,  that he was and is not and will come. 9 Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10 and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. 12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13 These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

 14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

 15 And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. 17For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. 18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Nigel Lee says,

“by the remarkable providences of that same God the ten Horn-kingdoms of the international Beast would themselves finally turn against ‘Babylon.’ [Rev. 17:3,12-14 cf. 12:11 & 19:15-21, pg. 207-DS]

…The scarlet-coloured Beast is Rome…The Beast’s seven Heads are Kingdoms whether those of Pagan Roman Emperors, of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ (thus Adam Clarke), or of an international Neo-Roman Empire (thus Barnes and the Afrikaans Bible with Explanatory Notes). The ten Horns on the Beast, are Nations (thus Luther and Conradus). All in all, the Beast is intimately associated with Antichrist (thus the A.D. 650 Andreas of Caesarea, the Venerable Bede (700f), and Walafrid Strabo (840) and specifically with the Papacy (thus Cranmer, Napier, and Adam Clarke). [pg. 208-DS]…We believe, however, that Rev. ch. 17 nevertheless centrally refers to the “last” stages (cf. Rev. 15:1 & 17:1) of Papal Romanism as the later “apostate ‘Jerusalem'” to which John was referring ever since Rev. ch. 9:20 (cf. nn. 408 & 581 & 611). Here are our reasons for this view.

(1) In Rev. 13 (q.v.), the second or Papal Beast out of the Earth comes in the place of the first or Roman Imperial Beast that arises out of the sea. The Beast in Rev. 17 is clearly a continuation of the second or Romish-Papal Beast of Rev. 13, but at a rather later stage of its development. Rev. 15:1 cf. 17:1f.

(2) In Rev. 12:1,6,14  the True Church alias the bride of the Lamb with the names of the twelve ‘patriarchal’ stars on her forehead, is in the Wilderness (Ereemos) of God’s protection. But in Rev. 17:3,5,18  the Romish Anti-christ’s False-Church alias the Whore with the Babylonic name on her forehead, is in the “Wilderness” (Ereemos) of sin.

(3) In Rev. 15:1 & 17:1f, one of the seven Angels with the seven last plagues shows John the great Whore a top the Beast or Theerion in the city of ‘Babylon.’ But in Rev. 21:9f, one of the same Angels with the seven last plagues contrasts the above by now showing John the true bride of the lamb or Arnion in the ‘City of God.’

(4) In John’s Gospel, it is the word Amnos which is always used for ‘Lamb.’ But in John’s Revelation, the word used for ‘Lamb’ is Arnion  in onomatopoeic contrast with the word for ‘Beast’ (Theerion)  as in the phrases hee Pornee and to Theerion in contrast to the phrases hee Nymphee and to Arnion in Rev. 17:1-3 &19:2,7,20 & 21:2,9 & 22:17.

(5) Even the greatest of all Romish Theologians, Thomas Aquinas, believed Rev. 17’s “Whore” to be a teacher of heresy [and therefore a corrupt ‘Church’]  “habens poculum, id est, erronem doctrinae; hoc maxime in hereticis locum habet” (Bossuet’s Preface sur l’Apocalypse on ch. 17).

[Nigel Lee, pg. 209 fn-DS]..

Even the eminent Romish Historian and Statesman the Duc de Broglie stated in his famous book History of the Church (VI:434 & VI:456): “The Popes mounted the throne voided by the Caesars.” Thus the Popes “grasped, little by little, the place left vacant deserted by the successor of Augustus.”… Moreover, as time goes on the great Whore of the Romish Papacy produces also a whole litter of Daughter-Whores. Cf. Ezekiel 16:44-57 and Hosea 2:2 & 4:12f. For Neo-‘Babylon’ is “the Mother of Harlots.” Revelation 17:5. [Nigel Lee, pg. 210-DS] As many of the finest Protestant (and even some Romish) Bible commentators declare: Papal Romanism is the Mother of Whores and, here, is herself called “Babylon the Great.” For she whorishly and progressively absorbs and syncretizes all the Pseudo-Christian (and ultimately also very many of the Non-Christian) religious elements already described and noted at the end of the previous chapter right after the outpouring of the sixth vial of the seven last plagues.  Second. After hearing the Angel’s description, John was actually shown a vision of the Papacy at the height of her powers. Wrote John of the Angel: “So he carried me away in the Spirit, into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured Beast, full of names of blasphemy. It had seven Heads and ten Horns.” This represents an advanced stage of History. Toward the end of Revelation chapter twelve, we found a description of the birth of the Papacy at the end of the early centuries of the Christian Church when the latter was forced to flee into the Wilderness to avoid imperial and papal persecution.

In Revelation chapter thirteen, we were given a description of the later growth of the Papacy in her healing of the wound of the international political Beast of the so-called “Holy Roman Empire”  and also of her own gradual absorption of that Beast’s politico-economic functions. However, here in Revelation chapter seventeen we are given a description of the still-later Papal control of the international political Beast. Here in Revelation chapter seventeen, the Whore is still masquerading as the woman in the “wilderness” and thus is still claiming to be the TrueChurch of Christ. Yet now, she is in fact seated or enthroned on top of the Beast with the ten Horns. She herself is (as it were) the ‘eleventh’ or ‘stout and arrogant Horn’ in Daniel’s vision. [Rev. 17:1,3,7,15,18 cf. Dan. 7:7f,20-24 -DS] For the Whore is now seen to be steering and guiding the international political Beast and she has it carry her wherever she would have it go. For now she “reigns”  and “reigns over the Kings of the Earth.” [Nigel Lee, pg. 213-DS]…

Fourth. John was given an explanation of the Beast with the seven Heads and ten Horns which carried the Whore. This Beast with the seven Heads or Kings or Kingdoms (alias kinds of government) is the successive series of political World-Empires “that was, and is not, and yet is.”That is the same Beast already described in earlier chapters. That Beast “was” before Calvary. It “is not,” ever since it was ‘slain’ through Christ’s resurrection. “And yet [it] is,” even thereafter. For its deadly wound was inflicted by Christ’s death and resurrection (and further by Constantine’s resultant accession). Yet later, it was to be healed (particularly by the Papacy) so that it would even thereafter continue to live on.[Nigel Lee, pg. 215-DS]…

Now these seven “Mountains” are not just seven so-called ‘Mountain-like’ Leaders of Ancient Rome from the end of the Roman Republic down to the time of the Apostle John viz. Pompey, Julius Caesar, Octavian alias Augustus, Tiberius, Caius alias Caligula, Claudius, and Nero.For in Revelation seventeen, these seven “Mountains” are also identified with seven “Heads” or seven “Kings” alias Kingdoms. Thus they are also and even especially the seven successive Kingdoms alias World Empires since the first apostate World-Empire of Nimrod in Ancient Babylon right down to the last apostate World-Empire of the revived and World-embracing Babylonianism of the great Whore Papal Rome and all her apostate Pseudo-‘Protestant’ Daughters andFellow-Harlots.

Of these World-Empires (explained the Angel to John in that Apostle’s own own time), “five are fallen” namely the Ancient Egyptian,the Assyrian, the Neo-Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. “And one is” namely the Imperial Roman (thus Matthew Poole and Albert Barnes). That World-Empire was still standing in the first century (A.D.) when John was writing these inspired words. It would finally perish with the deposition of the Emperor Romulus Augustulus by the Barbarian Invader Odoacer, in A.D. 476.

Noted John in his own day: “The other [or seventh World-Empire] has not yet come.”That would be the Papal-Romish Empire. Thus Joachim of Floris, Dante, the early Protestant Reformers, and many others. When it did come, it would mark the A.D. 606f ‘rebirth’ of ‘Babylonianism.’ Thus Osiander, Flaccius Illyricus, Bale, Brightman, James the First, Joseph Mede, John Cotton, Holyoake, Cressener, Gerhard, Helwig, Jurieu, Alsted, Phillipot, Cotton Mather, Matthew Henry, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Thos. Newton, Backus, B.H. Carroll, and others.

Furthermore, explained John, after the above seven Kings or Kingdoms or World-Empires “the Beast that was, and is not even he is the eighth.”

This is: the Imperialist State (thus Matthew Henry); the Holy Roman Empire (thus Adam Clarke); the Papacy in interaction with the international Empire”. [Nigel Lee, pg. 216-DS]

So is everything hopeless? Are we to see the coming Papal Empire and despair unto death? No! This is then the summary of the fall of Romanism as given in John’s Revelation Unveiled by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee,

“This receiving of sovereignty by the in-John’s-time ten future Kingdoms refers to the fragmentation of the Roman Empire after the fall of the Imperial Rome of Caesar Romulus Augustulus to Odoacer in A.D. 476, and its subsequent division into the ten Kingdoms later to become the so-called ‘Holy Roman Empire.’ This corresponds to the development of those ‘Kingdoms’ later gaining sovereignty (as ten crowned Horns). So the ten Horns represent ten Kingdoms. Thus Irenaeus, Osiander, Bale, Bellarmin, Blasius Viegas, Pareus, Grotius, Hammond, John Cotton, Roger Williams, Holyoake, Increase Mather, Matthew Poole, Samuel Sewall, Cotton Mather, Noyes, Matthew Henry, Bishop Thomas Newton, John Brown of Haddington, Timothy Dwight, G.S. Faber, Thomas Scott, Cunninghame, James Begg, Jenks’s Comprehensive Bible, Louis Gaussen, Albert Barnes, B.H. Carroll, and many others. More specifically, those ten ‘Horn-Kings’ are countries specifically in Western Europe. Adam Clarke identifies the Beast’s ten Horns with “future Latin Western Europe.” So too even the A.D. 400 Jerome, the ninth century Berengaud, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1639 Dordt Dutch Bible, and even the 1650f Roman Catholic commentator Bossuet. Yet it was only later that those thus-crowned Nations would achieve unification of purpose by surrendering some of their sovereignty to (and thus jointly reigning with) the international political Beast as such. Cf. Emperors Pepin and Charlemagne and the mediaeval Popes Innocent and Boniface). Only when that had finished happening would the great Whore of the Babylonian Papacy mount the Beast and steer it (Horns and all), in a papal attempt to dominate the Kings of the whole World. For the Babylonish Papacy is “the great Whore that keeps on sitting upon many waters.” It is also “that great city which keeps on reigning over the Kings of the Earth” (as even papal coins proclaim). As the Angel with one of the seven last plagues told John: “The waters which you saw where the Whore keeps on sitting, are peoples and multitudes and Nations and tongues. How existentially relevant all this is, in our own time! For today, the Papacy is again making a most determined effort to gain control of the whole World through promoting both religious syncretism (under her leadership) and internationalism (under her influence). But how comforting it is to know, as Mauro notes, “that God’s hand will be the active agent in it; that He will ‘put in their hearts to fulfil His will and to agree, and give their Kingdom to the Beast’ (the League of Nations or something similar)” such as the United Nations Organization, “until the words of God shall be fulfilled!” [pg. 218]… It should be noted that all such Papal efforts will not prevail! For, some time before the Vatican has achieved her objective of ruling the entire World (as Nimrod of old tried to do in Ancient Babylon) God will pour out the seventh and last vial of His wrath on the Great City and on the cities of the Nations. As a result, the ten [leading] Kingdoms of the international political Beast will rebel against the Papal attempt to dominate them internationally. Thus the Angel said to the Apostle John: “The ten Horns which you saw upon the Beast…shall [start to] hate the Whore; and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.”

As a result, the ten [leading] Kingdoms of the international political Beast will rebel against the Papal attempt to dominate them internationally. Thus the Angel said to the Apostle John: “The ten Horns which you saw upon the Beast…shall [start to] hate the Whore; and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. [218-219]… Albert Barnes…”The ten Kingdoms on the Beast would ultimately hate the Harlot and destroy her…. The Nations of Europe embraced within the limits of those ten Kingdoms, shall become hostile to the Papacy….. France…has already struck more than one heavy blow on that power; England has been detached from it; many of the states of Italy are weary of it…. Nothing is more probable than that Spain [and] Portugal…will yet throw off the yoke forever….”Europe needs but little farther provocation, and the fires of liberty which have been so long pent up will break forth…. That storm of indignation which has expelled the Jesuits from all the courts of Europe; which has abolished the Inquisition; which has more than once led hostile armies to the very gates of Papal Rome will again be aroused in a manner which cannot be allayed…. The period will come  and that probably not far in the future when those powers that have for so many ages sustained the Papacy will become its determined foes, and will rise in their might and bring it forever to an end…. That mighty power, which has controlled so large a part of the Nations of Europe for more than a thousand years of the World’s History, will come to an end.” [220]…John had described how, as a result of God’s outpouring of the last vial of His wrath, the ten Kings would ultimately turn against the religious Whore called ‘Babylon.’ This Whore we saw to be the Romish-led modern movement toward inter-religious syncretism.” [Pg. 225]

Lee says on page 201,

“Comments Jonathan Edwards: “In this last great opposition which shall be made against the Church to defend the kingdom of Satan  all the forces of Antichrist, and Mahometanism, and Heathenism, will be united…through[out] the Whole World…. It is said that ‘spirits of Devils shall go forth unto the Kings of the Earth and of the whole World, to gather them together to the battle of the great day of God Almighty’….”These spirits are said to come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the False-Prophet….There shall be the spirit of Popery, and the spirit of Mahometanism, and the spirit of Heathenism  all united. By the Beast, is meant Antichrist…. By the False-Prophet…an eye seems to be had to Mahomet, whom his followers call the ‘Great Prophet’…. Christ and His Church shall in this battle obtain a complete and entire victory over their enemies. They shall be totally routed and overthrown [pg. 201-DS]… Thomas Brightman taught (in 1614f) that the passage Revelation 16:16 to 18:24, marks not the end of History  but the fall of Romanism and of Islam. He believed it would also mark the conversion of the Jews, and the erection of long-lasting Christian-international harmony throughout the World. [pg. 206]…Indeed, Papal Rome has even continued in those ancient Babylonian Iniquities. She has also reproduced similarly-iniquitous apostate and Pseudo-‘Protestant’ Daughters. Those apostate Pseudo-‘Protestant’ Daughters, are Rome’s ‘Fellow-Harlots.’ In fact, even now, she is in the process of trying to become re-united with them. [214] ”

Let us then expose the Roman-Jesuit led conspiracy against the Protestant Reformation and expose all the Pagan Whorish Roman remnants in our Churches: Thomism, Pseudo Dionysius, Plotinus/Aquinas’ Monad and all its children: ADS, Analogy of Proportionality, Modalism and Hyper Calvinism; Futurism, Preterism, Uninspired Hymnody, Icon Worship, the Organ, Musical Instrumentation in Worship, Pagan Holy Days, Continuationism, Irrationalism, Pelagianism and the like. May we preach the Calvinist gospel unto the masses, unto global salvation. May we preserve a remnant of people to continue the Reformation after the Papacy has deceived the world into coming under its power and the nations realize his evil and rebel against him. May they have a place to turn when all seems to be at a loss. At this point, the Seventh Vial will be poured out upon the Papacy and Islam and the Millennium will be ushered in. Until then, for the Crown Rights of Christ and his eternal Covenant,

“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in  their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour  have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD” (Ps. 149:6-9). (kjv)

 “Christ is also armed with an iron scepter, by which to bruise the rebellious, and is elsewhere described as stained with blood, as slaying his enemies on every side, and not being wearied with the slaughter of them. (Isaiah 63:2.) Nor is it surprising, considering the obstinacy which universally prevails in the world, that the mercy which is treated with such indignity should be converted into severity. Now the doctrine laid down in the passage admits of being rightly applied to our practice, in this way, that what is here said of the two-edged sword, applies more especially to the Jews, and not properly to us, who have not a power of this kind permitted; except, indeed, that rulers and magistrates are vested by God with the sword to punish all manner of violence; but this is something peculiar to their office. As to the Church collective, the sword now put into our hand is of another kind, that of the word and spirit, that we may slay for a sacrifice to God those who formerly were enemies, or again deliver them over to everlasting destruction unless they repent. (Ephesians 6:17.) For what Isaiah predicted of Christ extends to all who are his members, — “He shall smite the wicked with the word of his mouth,  and shall slay them with the breath of his lips.” (Isaiah 11:4.) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalm 149:9)

You may be wondering the identity of the picture atop this article. He is Adolfo Nicolás Pachón,  the thirtieth and current Superior General of the Society of Jesus, the largest male religious order in the Roman catholic Church. This is our enemy. Whether you are a secularist or a religious person, it makes no difference. This is your enemy. He wants all of you. He

wants your nation, your money, your labor and your rights and he wants them all under the Primacy of his Papa. Know your enemy. And do not be deceived, the Eastern Orthodox Church is also in league with the Pope. You can read here about the Eastern Church’s apostasy and their flirtation with papal primacy.


History of Christian Establishment vs. Contemporary Pluralism; A Full Exposition and Defense of a Scripturalist-Scottish Presbyterian Political Theory-5 Wednesday, Dec 14 2011 

Since the dawn of mankind it has been understood that a people derive their identity, unity, culture and purpose from the underlining and established philosophy of their land. Since the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church’s Counter Reformation has done everything it can to attack this principle, so that the power and influence of the Protestant Established Nations would crumble and the Roman Church could again gain influence in the West. When the Protestant Reformation first gained the victory in northern European nations in the 16th century, their intention was not Pluralism and the view of the secular state as it is understood here in America was abhorred. They advocated one true Protestant religion to be held among all. In the The Augsburg Confession 1530 A.D. Preface to the Emperor Charles V we read,

1] Most Invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, Most Clement Lord: Inasmuch as Your Imperial Majesty has summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg to deliberate concerning measures against the Turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion, in what way, namely, effectually to withstand his furor and assaults by strong and lasting military provision; 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other’s presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord, 4] that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.

And inasmuch as we, the undersigned Elector and 5] Princes, with others joined with us, have been called to the aforesaid Diet the same as the other Electors, Princes, and Estates, in obedient compliance with the Imperial mandate, we have promptly come to Augsburg, and—what we do not mean to say as boasting—we were among the first to be here.

6] Accordingly, since even here at Augsburg at the very beginning of the Diet, Your Imperial Majesty caused to be proposed to the Electors, Princes, and other Estates of the Empire, amongst other things, that the several Estates of the Empire, on the strength of the Imperial edict, should set forth and submit their opinions and judgments in the German and the Latin 7] language, and since on the ensuing Wednesday, answer was given to Your Imperial Majesty, after due deliberation, that we would submit the Articles of our Confession for our side on next Wednesday, therefore, in obedience to Your Imperial Majesty’s 8] wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches.

9] And if the other Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will, according to the said Imperial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, in Latin and German, giving their opinions in this 10] matter of religion, we, with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your Imperial Majesty, our most clement Lord are prepared to confer amicably concerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come together, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between us on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife, the dissension, by God’s help, may be done away and brought back to one true accordant 11] religion; for as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor of Your Imperial Majesty’s edict, and everything ought to be conducted according to the truth of God; and this it is what, with most fervent prayers, we entreat of God.

12] However, as regards the rest of the Electors, Princes, and Estates, who constitute the other part, if no progress should be made, nor some result be attained by this treatment of the cause of religion after the manner in which Your Imperial Majesty has wisely held that it should be dealt with and treated namely, by such mutual presentation of writings and calm conferring together among ourselves, 13] we at least leave with you a clear testimony, that we here in no wise are holding back from anything that could bring about Christian concord,—such as could be effected with God and a good conscience,—as14] also Your Imperial Majesty and, next, the other Electors and Estates of the Empire, and all who are moved by sincere love and zeal for religion, and who will give an impartial hearing to this matter, will graciously deign to take notice and to understand this from this Confession of ours and of our associates.

15] Your Imperial Majesty also, not only once but often, graciously signified to the Electors Princes, and Estates of the Empire, and at the Diet of Spires held A.D. 1526, according to the form of Your Imperial instruction and commission given and prescribed, caused it to be stated and publicly proclaimed that 16] Your Majesty, in dealing with this matter of religion, for certain reasons which were alleged in Your Majesty’s name, was not willing to decide and could not determine anything, but that Your Majesty would diligently use Your Majesty’s office with the Roman Pontiff for the convening of a General Council. 17] The same matter was thus publicly set forth at greater length a year ago at the last Diet which met at Spires. 18] There Your Imperial Majesty, through His Highness Ferdinand, King of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and clement Lord, as well as through the Orator and Imperial Commissioners caused this, among other things, to be submitted: that Your Imperial Majesty had taken notice of; and pondered, the resolution of Your Majesty’s Representative in the Empire, and of the President and Imperial Counselors, and the Legates from other Estates convened at Ratisbon, 19] concerning the calling of a Council, and that your Imperial Majesty also judged it to be expedient to convene a Council; and that Your Imperial Majesty did not doubt the Roman Pontiff could be induced to 20] hold a General Council, because the matters to be adjusted between Your Imperial Majesty and the Roman Pontiff were nearing agreement and Christian reconciliation; therefore Your Imperial Majesty himself signified that he would endeavor to secure the said Chief Pontiff’s consent for convening, together with your Imperial Majesty such General Council, to be published as soon as possible by letters that were to be sent out.

21] If the outcome, therefore, should be such that the differences between us and the other parties in the matter of religion should not be amicably and in charity settled, then here, before Your Imperial Majesty we make the offer in all obedience, in addition to what we have already done, that we will all appear and defend our cause in such a general, free Christian Council, for the convening of which there has always been accordant action and agreement of votes in all the Imperial Diets held during Your Majesty’s reign, on the part of the Electors, Princes, and other Estates of the Empire. 22] To the assembly of this General Council, and at the same time to Your Imperial Majesty, we have, even before this, in due manner and form of law, addressed ourselves and made appeal in this matter, by far the greatest and gravest. To this 23] appeal, both to Your Imperial Majesty and to a Council, we still adhere; neither do we intend nor would it be possible for us, to relinquish it by this or any other document, unless the matter between us and the other side, according to the tenor of the latest Imperial citation should be amicably and charitably settled, allayed, and brought to Christian concord; 24] and regarding this we even here solemnly and publicly testify.”

In Thomas Paine’s Common Sense page 46 he says,

“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of all governments to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us: it affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation, and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only in what is called their Christian names.”

Paine’s view was the exact opposite view of Protestant Christianity.  And make no mistake, the Roman Church has for centuries been the most intolerant of all Christian communions. In their famous papal bull In Coena Domini the Roman Pope boasted of such religious dominance over all nations that, in 1770 it had to be repealed due to the gross offense it caused. So what happened that changed the views of many Catholics? The Counter Reformation. The primary Order created by this Reformation was the Society of Jesus-the Jesuits in 1534.  Strangely, they were known for their secular humanistic educators. Their crowning achievement was the Philosopher René Descartes who was trained at the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand at La Flèche. He is the Father of Modern Secularism. I think, with many Reformed and Presbyterian Scholars that the Enlightenment or the idea of secular society is a way to control people by the Roman Catholic Church. Their primary idea was to destroy the established Protestant nations through secular humanistic philosophy. The Roman Church lost more than half of their control over the western world and the Pope was even usurped by Napolean. Secularism is a way to re-introduce Roman Catholicism into western society because the centuries that followed the Reformation all understood that Roman Catholicism was a lethal power hungry religion that could not be allowed into a civilized nation. Secularism allowed them back into nations where they previously were barred by the power of law. Now with this secular system in place they could grow again, increase their wealth, and conspire to gain power for the Pope again. Case in point is Rene Descartes. He started generations of philosophers that tried to develop ways to get knowledge without appealing to religion. Thus the age of secular philosophy began and Protestant Nations that once taught their people true religion got ignored and Civilization left the door wide open again for the Roman Beast. Ask yourself, why did the most intolerant religion in the history of the world, the Roman Catholic Religion, who bore the Inquisition in her breast, all of a sudden turn 180 degrees when the Reformation happened. John Locke’s secular views of government were all inspired from Rene Descartes. However, even Locke knew that unbridled pluralism was madness and he even knew not to allow Romanism into society because,

“That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. [The Pope-DS] For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.” (A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke 1689 Translated by William Popple)

The whole idea that a nation should be obliged to no established religion and no principle of unity is completely absurd and comes straight out of the insanity of atheism. Even Locke understood this.  Baptists, atheists and most importantly Romanists love it because it keeps them from being held accountable for their devilish deceits and most importantly the Roman Catholic Church can keep sucking society dry of their money as they hoard up riches for their antichristian beast which will most likely be the only refuge for Western Society after the economy collapses.

Deborah O’malley wrote a fantastic summary of the debates in Virginia concerning the Establishment Principle and Thomas Jefferson’s soon to dominate principles of Pluralism. It is titled  “The Dictates Of Conscience:” The Debate Over Religious Liberty In Revolutionary Virginia, Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis. (Ashland University Ashbrook Site, available at:; [accessed December 2011])

O’malley argues, “One may ask why, according to Jefferson, a man would want to establish a religion in the first place.  Jefferson says that such men have “impious presumptions” and that they want to have “dominion over the faith of others.” (pg. 20)

Actually, in the Preface to the Augsburg Confession, when the kings of Northern Europe appealed to Charles, they sought to establish the Protestant religion to reject those that had dominion over their faith. I was raised in the United States, that is arguably the most pluralistic and disestablished nation ever. I have on my own come to despise this system because I have lost everything through studying my way out of a few systems of theology. I was committed to one group who promised to fund my college expenses in exchange for certain services and they refused to come through a month and a half before I graduated, because I became convinced of certain Presbyterian doctrines. This spiraled my life into financial ruin which resulted in the loss of everything I worked for my entire adult life. Many other examples could be given. Western Society has left the idea that the end of human society is a people with an identity and a culture flowing out of their religion and their God to adopt the theory that the end of human society is business. They want to tolerate all religions and make the state secular because that is good business. Currently, America has no human identity, no culture and now the businessmen have all the power and they are using it to destroy the middle class. Didn’t see that one coming did we? God has turned our devices on ourselves and used the very things that we replaced him with to destroy us. Sound familiar? Just read your Old Testament. I hate living here because there is no Nation; no PEOPLE. This country is a BUSNIESS full of lost and confused individuals with so many religions around them they don’t know what to believe. Thirdly, the traditional Christian purpose for establishment is the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

Rutherford’s Social Covenant Theory (The Reformed Establishment Principle) vs. Social Contract Theory; A Full Exposition and Defense of a Scripturalist-Scottish Presbyterian Political Theory-4 Monday, Dec 12 2011 

The idea of social covenant theory a.k.a. the Protestant Establishment Principle is found in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex Q. XIV and is explained and defended in full in his book Free Disputation. As was quoted above, “Civil magistracy is recognized and acknowledged to be “the ordinance of God” and “the minister of God to thee for good” not only by means of institution (i.e. meeting the qualifications for civil magistracy as found in God’s moral law in nature and in Scripture), but also by means of constitution [Ergo, Nero had right of institution but not of constitution and therefore is not recognized as the ordinance of God —DS] (i.e. securing the consent of the people and being invested with power by means of a covenant [whether explicit or implicit] between the magistrate and the people).” [GP] [Deut 17:14,15, Jud 8:22,  Judg 9:6, Judg 11:11, 1 Sam 11:15, 12:25, 1 Chron 11:3, 12:38, 2 Sam16:18, 1 Kings 1:38-39, 16:16, 2 Kings 10:5, 11:17-18, 14:21, 2 Chron 23:3, Judg 8:22, 9:6 Ecc 8:2,  {Freedom of parties to release themselves from covenant obligations when the terms if the covenant are broken-Jos 2:17-20}—DS]. You never see this with the office of a prophet. They are always called immediately by God. You never read hw the people made someone a prophet.

The Westminster Confession Chapter 23 states,

XI. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5]yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7] [5] 2CH 26:18 And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. MAT 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. MAT 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 1CO 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? EPH 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. 1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. ROM 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. [6] ISA 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. PSA 122:9 Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good. EZR 7:23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? 25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. 26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 27 Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem: 28 And hath extended mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellers, and before all the king’s mighty princes. And I was strengthened as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me. LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. DEU 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc. 2KI 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (1CH 13:1-8; 2KI 24:1-25) 2CH 34:33 And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers. 2CH 15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. [7] 2CH 19:8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. 10 And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass. 11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good. (2CH 29-30) MAT 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet.

Robert Shaw commenting says,

“Although the proper and immediate end of civil government, in subordination to God’s glory, is the temporal good of men, yet the advancement of religion is an end which civil rulers, in the exercise of their city authority, are bound to aim at; for even this direct end of their office cannot be gained without the aids of religion. And although magistracy has its foundation in natural principles, and Christianity invests civil rulers with no new powers, yet it greatly enlarges the sphere of the operation of that power which they possess, as civil rulers, from the law of nature. That law binds the subjects of God’s moral government, jointly and severally, to embrace and reduce to practice whatsoever God is pleased to reveal as the rule of their faith and duty. And therefore nations and their rulers, when favoured with divine revelation, should give their public countenance to the true religion; remove everything out of their civil constitution inconsistent with it, or tending to retard its progress; support and protect its functionaries in the discharge of their duty; and provide, in every way competent to them, that its salutary influence have free course, and be diffused through all orders and departments of society….

But while our Confession undeniably teaches, that the civil magistrate is authorised to do something about religion and the Church of Christ; yet it lays certain restrictions and limitations upon the exercise of his authority in regard to these matters. According to our Confession, the civil magistrate must not assume a lordly supremacy over the Church; for a there is no other head of the Church; but the Lord Jesus Christ.”–Chap. xxv., sect. 6. He must not interfere with her internal government; for “the Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church-officers, distinct from the civil magistrate;” and “to these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed.”–Chap. xxx., sect. 1, 2. He must not, as a magistrate, sustain himself a public judge of true or false religion, so as to dictate to his subjects in matters purely religious; for “it belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience,” &c.–Chap. xxxi., sect. 3. In the first paragraph of the section now under consideration, there is another important limitation of the power of the civil magistrate in regard to the Church. It is expressly declared, that he may not take upon himself the administration of the ordinances of worship: “He may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments.” Neither may he take upon himself the administration of the government and discipline of the Church: “He may not assume to himself the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” The keys, in the most extensive sense, include the whole ecclesiastical power, in distinction from the sword, or the civil power. But “the power of the keys,” taken in its more limited sense, as it must be here, where it is distinguished from the administration of the Word and sacraments, just means the ordinary power of government, in the administration of the affairs of the Church; and more particularly, the right of authoritatively and judicially determining all questions that may arise as to the admission of men to ordinances and to office in the Church of Christ, and the infliction and relaxation of Church censures.” This is not the only restriction laid upon the power of the civil magistrate in the present section. It is also plainly intimated, that, in the execution of the duty here entrusted to him, he must be regulated by the Word of God. He is not to act arbitrarily, but must be guided by the standard of God’s Word. In regard to one important branch of the functions here assigned to him–that which concerns synods–it is expressly declared, that he is to see that “what is transacted in them be according to the mind of God”–the mind of God, as revealed in his Word, being thus distinctly prescribed as a rule to him, as it is to the ordinary members of synods. This principle was admitted by the Erastians of former times; for they conceded to their opponents, “that the Christian magistrate, in ordering and disposing of ecclesiastical causes and matters of religion, is tied to keep close to the rule of the Word of God; and that as he may not assume an arbitrary government of the State, so far less of the Church.” It may be further added, that, according to our Confession, the civil magistrate is bound to act, in his official capacity, “according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.” – Sect. 2. Now, as our Confession of Faith is founded upon the Word of God, so it is embodied in our Statute-Book; and, therefore, when civil rulers assume a proper jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, which the Confession has denied to them, their proceedings must be inconsistent at once with the Word of God and the law of the land

The Confession specifies certain means which the civil magistrate may lawfully employ for effecting the objects mentioned: “For the better effecting whereof; he hath power to call synods.” From this it cannot be inferred that ministers have not a power to meet of themselves in synods and assemblies, without being called by the civil magistrate; for in chapter xxxi. it is expressly declared that they have such power “of themselves, and by virtue of their office.” The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, indeed, were of opinion that, in the chapter now referred to, the Confession is not sufficiently explicit in regard to the intrinsic power of the Church to call her own assemblies; and accordingly, in their Act of 1647, by which the Confession was approved, they expressly declare that they understood that part of it “only of kirks not settled or constituted in point of government;” and that explanation must apply equally to the section now before us. Our Confession, then, does not assert that the magistrate may exercise this power on all occasions, and in all circumstances, or whenever there are any evils of a religious kind to correct. It is sufficient that there may be times and circumstances in which he may warrantably exercise this power. When the state of the nation as well as of the Church may be convulsed, and its convulsions may be in a great degree owing to religious disorders, it is surely a high duty incumbent on him to take such a step, provided he finds it practicable and advisable.” (The Reformed Faith, Shaw/)

This view of establishment does not mean that the Christian Magistrate should force the conscience of man and neither does it force man’s attendance to public worship. Rutherford says in his book Free Disputation Chapter 4,

“5. The question is not whether religion can be enforced upon men by the Magistrate by the dint and violence of the sword, or only persuaded by the power of the word. We hold with Lactantius that religion cannot be compelled, nor can mercy and justice and love to our neighbour commaned in the second table, be more compelled then faith in Christ. Hence give me leave to prove two things. 1. That Religion and faith cannot be forced on men. 2. That this is a vain consequence, Religion cannot be forced but must be persuaded by the word and Spirit, Ergo the Magistrate can use no coercive power in punishing heretics and false teachers.

For the first, we lay hold on all the arguments that prove the word preached to be the only means of converting the soul, begetting of faith and that carnal weapons are not able, yea nor were they ever appointed of God, to ding down strong holds, nor can they make a willing people: and Lactantuis said well, What is left to us, if another’s lust extort that by force, which we must do willingly? And that of Tertullian. It is of the law or right of man and of his natural power what every man worships, what he thinks he should worship, nor doth the religion of one either do good or do evil to another man, nor is it religion to compel religion, which ought To be received by will not by force: since sacrifices (of worship) are required of a willing mind. In which I observe. 1. Tertullian speaks not of the true Christian religion which is now in question: but of religion in general as it is comprehensive of both true and false religion. Because he speaks of that religion which by the law of nature a man chooseth, and is humani juris and naturalis potestatis: but it is not of the law of man or natural power, nor in flesh and blood’s power to choose the true Christian religion, that election is Supernatural faith Tertullian there and else where often, as also the Scripture. John 6.44. Math. 16.17. Math. 11. 25, 26, 27. 2. Religion is taken two ways 1. for the inward and outward acts of religion as seen both to God and man as Lactantius, Tertullian and others say, so it is most true. Christians ought not with force of sword, compel Jews, nor Jews or pagans compel Christians to be of their religion, because religion is not begotten in any, by persuasion of the mind, nor by forcing of the man. Again religion is taken for the external profession and acting and performances of true religion within the church or by such as profess the truth, that are obvious to the eyes of Magistrates and pastors, and thus the sword is no means of God to force men positively to external worship or performances. But the sword is a means negatively to punish acts of false worship in those that are under the Christian Magistrate and profess Christian society, in so far as these acts come out to the eyes of men and are destructive to the souls of these in a Christian religion, Tis even so (and not otherwise punishable by the Magistrate;) for he may punish omissions of hearing the Doctrine of the Gospel and other external performances of worship,  as these omissions by ill example or otherwise are offensive to the souls of these that are to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; nor does it follow that the sword is a kindly means to force outward performances, for the Magistrate as the Magistrate does not command these outward performances as service to God, but rather forbids the omissions of them as destructing to man… These are of a wide difference, to kill blasphemers, and false teachers for spreading heresies and blasphemies; and to compel them by war, and fire and sword to be of our Christian religion. As I hope to prove, for the former is lawful, the later unlawful. Its true Lactantius speaks of all religion true and false, that we are to compel none with the sword to any religion, but he no where saith that the Magistrates may not kill open and pernicious seducers and false teachers who pervert others, for the Magistrate is not to compel yea not to intend the conversion of a pernicious seducer, but to intend to take his head from him, for his destroying of souls. And Lactantius denies religion after it is begotten, can be defended, that is nourished and conserved in the hearts of people by the sword, but by the word and spirit. Those are far different tormenting and piety (saith he) nor can violence be conjoined with verity, nor justice with cruelty… I. Because the Magistrate cannot, nor ought not to compel evil doers , murderers, adulterers, robbers, liars, to be internally peaceably, chaste, content with their own as well as they must be such externally, no more than he can compel them to inward fear, love, faith in God, and to the external performances thereof. But it doth not follow that therefore the Magistrate cannot command external acts of mercy, chastity, self-contentedness, and should not punish murder, adultery, theft, robbery, perjury, for to punish these makes many hypocritically peaceable, chaste, content with their own, true in their word, as well as punishing false teachers and heretics maketh many hypocritically sound in the faith so Augustine contra Petilian.1.3. c. 83.”

However, this view of establishment does not allow complete freedom of speech and the press.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20, “Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.” Section 4 reads,

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

So the Reformed view does not persecute private idolatry but public idolatry (Deut 17:3-5, 13:5,).

This does not mean that a Presbyterian establishment is a Gestapo that spies on its citizens in residential areas to catch them saying something worthy of negative civil sanction. It also does not mean that everyone who disagrees with the state is put to death. Rushdoony says,

“It should be noted that Deuteronomy 13: 5-18 does not call for the death penalty for unbelief or for heresy. It condemns false prophets (vv. 1-5) who seek to lead the people, with signs and wonders, into idolatry. It does condemn individuals who secretly try to start a movement into idolatry (vv. 6-11). It does condemn cities which establish another religion and subvert the law-order of the nation (vv. 13-18), and this condemnation must be enforced by man to turn away the judgment of God (v. 17) { (Rushdoony, Rousas John. 1973. The Institutes of Biblical Law. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 39: quoted from Michael Wagner in his A Presbyterian Political Manifesto  (SWRB Site, available at: ; [Accessed December 20111]) }

Thomas M’Crie qualifies the restrictions on speech and the press,

“Now, this does not say that all who publish such opinions and maintain such practices (as are here mentioned) may be proceeded against, or, punished (if the substitution of this word shall be insisted for) by the civil magistrate; nor does it say, that any good and peaceable subject shall be made liable to this process simply on the ground of religious opinions published and practices maintained by him. For, in the first place, persons of a particular character are spoken of in this paragraph, and these are very different from good and peaceable subjects. They are described in the former sentence as “they who oppose lawful power or the lawful exercise of it,” and “resist the ordinance of God.” The same persons are spoken of in the sentence under consideration, as appears from the copulative and relative. It is not said, “Any one for publishing,” etc., but “they who oppose any lawful power, etc. for their publishing,” etc. In the second place, this sentence specifies some of the ways in which these persons may become chargeable with the opposition mentioned, and consequently “may be called to account;” but it does not assert that even they must or ought to be prosecuted for every avowed opinion or practice of the kind referred to. . . . For, be it observed, it is not the design of the paragraph to state the objects of church censure or civil prosecution; its proper and professed object is to interpose a check on the abuse of liberty of conscience as operating to the prejudice of just and lawful authority. It is not sin as sin, but as scandal, or injurious to the spiritual interests of Christians, that is the proper object of church censure; and it is not for sins as such, but for crimes, that persons become liable to punishment by magistrates. The compilers of the Confession were quite aware of these distinctions, which were then common. . . . To render an action the proper object of magisterial punishment, it is not enough that it be contrary to the law of God, whether natural or revealed; it must, in one way or another, strike against the public good of society.” ([1821] 1989, 163-164). (M’Crie, Thomas. [1821] 1989. Unity of the Church. Dallas, Texas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications.: Quoted from Michael Wagner)

We can also gain instruction from the way the stranger is dealt with in the Old Covenant. Rushdoony states,

“God’s law repeatedly refers to the stranger and requires particular recognition of their [sic] freedom. They are not to be oppressed, and discrimination against them is forbidden. “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Ex.12:49). This law was given to Israel in Egypt, before their departure, to stress the fact that justice is without respect of persons. The protection of the law must extend to aliens: “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:15,16). Racial or national differences could not be used to bar aliens from knowledge of God’s law, nor from the Passover (Num.9:14; Deut. 7:10-12; Josh. 8:34f.). Because the foreigner, if not seeking admission into the covenant, had another religion, he was not required to abide by the ritual laws the covenant requires. He could enter into long-term debt, for example (Deut.15:3; cf. 23:21), and disregard the dietary laws (Deut. 14:21). The foreigner could not ascend Israel’s throne (Deut. 17:15). However, his status was that of a privileged guest (Rushdoony, Rousas John. 1986. Christianity and the State. Vallecito, California: Ross House Books: Quoted from Michael Wagner).”

This Protestant Establishment is in direct contradiction to the popular Social Contract theories of the modern secular world. On this Reformed Protestant view the proper constitution of a civil government is based on a covenant with the Lord of Heaven. This affirms a religious people coming together under a social covenant unto the Lord. So what is the difference? First some orientation.

The modern views of government primarily derive from three individuals: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, but Locke is the primary political theorist of our civilization. Locke was born in 1632 to Puritanic parents in England. In 1647 he studied at the Westminster School in London. In fulfillment of the Jesuit purpose of the Counter-Reformation, Locke became a follower of the Jesuit constructed philosophy of Rene Descartes. In 1675 he left to France to observe medical studies and in 1679 Locke returned to England to help Lord Shaftesbury in the debates concerning the Exclusion Bill (Anti-Catholic Legislation; Shaftesbury was a Whig and a supporter of the Bill and the removal of Romanist influence in Government ). They were exiled for this. Subsequently, he began writing his Two Treatises.

The Social Contract is the political theory that theoretically men begin in a state of nature.  The state of nature is understood in different ways. Hobbes’ view is that in this state,

“men are naturally and exclusively self-interested, they are more or less equal to one another…there are limited resources, and yet there is no power able to force men to cooperate…According to Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests.” (Social Contract, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011)

First, how does he know all men are self-interested and all men are rational? Second, we see the inherent atheism in this view in that a covenant with God is completely missing. Civil Society has one purpose: commerce.  The Constitution Society describes the purpose of civil government this way,

“Whenever any two or more individuals meet with the understanding and expectation that they will live together in harmony and not fight with one another using any available means, they are establishing a Social Contract among themselves.” (The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics)

Again, the Social Contract here is secular. It is a business contract not a human society. Locke’s justification for government was, “Since the State of Nature lacks civil authority, once war begins it is likely to continue. And this is one of the strongest reasons that men have to abandon the State of Nature by contracting together to form civil government.” (Social Contract, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011) Harold Laski, expounding more of Locke’s view says in Political Thought in England from Locke to Bentham

“There is no common superior to enforce the law of nature. Each man, as best he may, works out his own interpretation of it. But because the intelligences of men are different there is an inconvenient variety in the conceptions of justice. The result is uncertainty and chaos; and means of escape must be found from a condition which the weakness of men must ultimately make intolerable. It is here that the Social Contract emerges. But just as Locke’s natural state implies a natural man utterly distinct from Hobbes’ gloomy picture, so does Locke’s Social Contract represent rather the triumph of reason than of hard necessity. It is a contract of each with all, a surrender by the individual of his personal right to fulfil the commands of the law of nature in return for the guarantee that his rights as nature ordains them—life and liberty and property—will be preserved. The contract is thus not general as with Hobbes but limited and specific in character. Nor is it, as Hobbes made it, the resignation of power into the hands of some single man or group. On the contrary, it is a contract with the community as a whole which thus becomes that common political superior—the State—which is to enforce the law of nature and punish infractions of it. Nor is Locke’s state a sovereign State: the very word “sovereignty” does not occur, significantly enough, throughout the treatise. The State has power only for the protection of natural law. Its province ends when it passes beyond those boundaries.” (Pg. 41-42)

First, how does he know that war will continue? Is this another evidence of the solipsism of empiricism? Second, Civil Government is a deterrent from War? The exact opposite affirmation is the basis of Anarchism, which states that civil governments are designed primarily to make the rich richer through war and the powerful more powerful. Third, we see again the utter secularism of this so called Social Contract. None of these theories point to the God of heaven and man’s obligations to him.  The Reformed view of the State of Nature is found in Rutherford’s Lex Rex Q. 13,

“Assert. 1. — As a man cometh into the world a member of a politic society, he is, by consequence, born subject to the laws of that society; but this maketh him not, from the womb and by nature, subject to a king, as by nature he is subject to his father who begat him, no more than by nature a lion is born subject to another king-lion; for it is by accident that he is born of parents under subjection to a monarch, or to either democratical or aristocratical governors, for Cain and Abel were born under none of these forms of government properly; and if he had been born in a new planted colony in a wilderness, where no government were yet established, he should be under no such government.

Assert. 2. — Slavery of servants to lords or masters, such as were of old amongst the Jews, is not natural, but against nature. 1. Because slavery is malum naturæ, a penal evil and contrary to nature, and a punishment of sin. 2. Slavery should not have been in the world, if man had never sinned, no more than there could have been buying and selling of men, which is a miserable consequent of sin and a sort of death, when men are put to the toiling pains of the hireling, who longeth for the shadow, and under iron harrows and saws, and to hew wood, and draw water continually. 3. The original of servitude was, when men were taken in war, to eschew a greater evil, even death, the captives were willing to undergo a less evil, slavery, (S. Servitus, 1 de jure. Pers.) 4. A man being created according to God’s image, he is res sacra, a sacred thing, and can no more, by nature’s law, be sold and bought, than a religious and sacred thing dedicated to God…Assert. 3. — Every man by nature is a freeman born, that is, by nature no man cometh out of the womb under any civil subjection to king, prince, or judge, to master, captain, conqueror, teacher, &c.

Arg. 1. — Because freedom is natural to all, except freedom from subjection to parents; and subjection politic is merely accidental, coming from some positive laws of men, as they are in a politic society; whereas they might have been born with all concomitants of nature, though born in a single family, the only natural and first society in the world…

Arg. 5. — If men be not by nature free from politic subjection, then must some, by the law of relation, by nature be kings. But none are by nature kings, because none have by nature these things which essentially constitute kings, for they have neither by nature the calling of God, nor gifts for the throne; nor the free election of the people, nor conquest; and if there be none a king by nature, there can be none a subject by nature…

Arg. 6…Scripture cleareth to us, that a king is made by the free consent of the people, (Deut xvii. 15,) and so not by nature.

Arg. 7. — What is from the womb, and so natural, is eternal, and agreeth to all societies of men; but a monarchy agreeth not to all societies of men; for many hundred years; de facto, there was not a king till Nimrod’s time, the world being governed by families, and till Moses’ time we find no institution for kings, (Gen. vii.) and the numerous multiplication of mankind did occasion monarchies, otherwise, fatherly government being the first and measure of the rest, must be the best; for it is better that my father govern me, than that a stranger govern me, and, therefore, the Lord forbade his people to set a stranger over themselves to be their king…

3. God and nature hath laid a necessity on all men to be under government, a natural necessity from the womb to be under some government, to wit, a paternal government, that is true; but under this government politic, and namely under sovereignty, it is false; and that is but said: for why is he naturally under sovereignty rather than aristocracy? I believe any of the three forms are freely chosen by any society. 4. It is false that one cannot defend the people, except he have entire power, that is to say, he cannot do good except he have a vast power to do both good and ill.”

Do rights derive from the Social Contract or are they alienated and surrendered to the contract? Rousseau said both. The French Revolution was adamant on inalienable rights so how this works is anyone’s best guess. How can someone surrender over what they only get after the contract has been made? The arbitrary nature of rights in Social Contract Theory is exposed in such an example: If the socially contracted moral person added an amendment calling for the extermination of a certain ethnicity, this moral person would not just have the force, BUT THE RIGHT to do so. If not then we must have a different source of rights than a Social Contract. On this arbitrary secular view, Laws are simply arbitrary conventions or instruments of government. Weapons are also instruments of government, and here we see the reason to use them is as arbitrary as the laws enacted upon those who kill with them.  On the Christian view, laws are manifestations of the will of God; at least as they reflect the Moral Law of God in the Bible. Therefore, the secular world needs to give us a better definition of law and tell us how they know about these laws before their theory can be recognized to even get off the ground.  The Social Contract Theory asserts that the purpose of government is to codify the terms of agreement among men in order to ensure tranquility and liberty among men. The Westminster Confession Chapter 23 Of the Civil Magistrate says,

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.[1] [1] ROM 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (CRTA)

Here the Confession affirms something “religious” about human society. Inherent to human society is religion and so the magistrate is God’s representative in a society of men as a minster of God’s justice, discerning between Good and Evil as it is revealed in the Scriptures. It is because of this that a Christian should never believe the Social Contract Theory. Aside from this religious criticism, there is also a secular criticism. Proudhon will ask, how do you know that a civil institution is required for agreement and tranquility among men? He will affirm a moral urge that is sufficient for these things. (Anarchism by George Woodcock, pg. 15) And I will ask the same. How do you know that a civil institution is required for these things?

Dr. Gordon Clark says with reference to the Christian view of government, “The basic thought is that government is a divine institution. The authority of magistrates does not derive from any voluntary social compact, but it derives from God.” (Christian View, pg. 99) I would only qualify this by adding that magistracy in the abstract is a divine institution; not every concrete magistrate.

Social Contract theorists talk about how individual citizens surrender their rights over to a group contract wherein a moral person is created among them. How can the abstract concept of a moral person be produced from sensation? That is, where can I see or touch a moral person? If I cannot then the atheistic theory of empiricism must be abandoned or the moral person theory abandoned, you cannot have it both ways.

Where does a government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority? Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction? Every time I have asked this of Secularists they just look real funny at me, like they never even thought of that before. This is why Social Contract demands a unanimous agreement in a body politic. Good luck with that one.  No such government exists or ever has existed. If you hold to this theory you must admit that no ACTUAL government rules by right.  By what right does a Social Contract coerce the children of the body politic to contract and surrender their rights? How will the government continue? This is why Christians have historically Baptized their infants because they understand the Patriarchal nature of humanity (Baptists reject infant baptism as they reject the inherent Patriarchalism of Religion); Covenant obligations are passed down to the children through the Patriarch or head of the house. Here we see the inherent atheism ingrained in Baptist Theology. This is why Baptistic and Atheistic views of society are such a fringe in the history of the world. They are inhuman and cannot begin to address rudimentary issues of human society.

This brings us to the Reformed explanation of the Social Covenant Theory. The following quotations are taken from section 11 in the  Reformed Presbyterian Catechism
by William Roberts (1853) [Still Waters Revival Books Site, available at: (accessed December 20011)]

“Q. Are religious covenants either personal or social?

A. They are both. 1. Personal, when an individual engages, on the one hand, to keep the cnmmandments of the Lord, and takes hold by faith, on the other, of God’s gracious promise. 2. Social, when a society engages with joint concurrence to perform certain duties, and to embrace with one heart the precious promises of Jehovah.

Q. Is it competent to any society, be it a family, a church, or a nation, to enter with common understanding and consent into a federal transaction?

A. Yes. And when this is done by a large corporate body, the transaction is called a public social covenant, which is the subject of consideration in this section.

Q. What is public social covenanting?

A. It is a solemn religious transaction in which men, with joint concurrence, avouch the Lord to be their God, and engage, in all the relations of life, to serve him by obedience to his law, in the performance of all civil and religious duties in the confidence of his favour and blessing in the fulfilment to them of all his gracious promises. Deut. xxix. 10-13. “Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel. Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water; that thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” Josh. xxiv. 1,25. 2 Chr. xv. 9,12,15. Is. xix. 18. Jer. xi. 10.

Q. By what arguments can it be proved that public social covenanting is of divine authority, and so of moral obligation?

A. By numerous arguments. 1. The light of nature. The mariners of Tarshish, Jonah i. 16. “Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows.” Epictetus, a heathen moralist, thus expresses himself: “To this God we ought to swear an oath, such as the soldiers swear to Caesar. They, indeed, by the inducement of their wages, swear that they will value the safety of Caesar before all things; and will you, then, honoured with so many and so great benefits, not swear to God? or having sworn, will you not continue stedfast?” 2. Scripture precepts. Ps. lxxvi. 11. “Vow and pay unto the Lord your God.” Jer. iv. 6. “Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness.” Also, xliv. 26, and Deut. x. 20. 2. Chr. xxx. 8. “Yield (give the hand) yourselves unto the Lord-and serve the Lord your God;” and Rom. vi. 13, Mat. v. 33. “Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thy oaths.” Rom. xii. 1. 3. Scripture examples. Deut. xxvi. 15-19. “Thou hast avouched the Lord to be thy God-and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people-that thou shouldst keep all his commandments.” xxix. 10-13. Quoted above, Josh. xxiv. 1,25-“So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day,” &c. 2 Kings xi. 17. “And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people.” xxiii. 1,2; also, Neh. x. 29, &c.

Q. Is not covenanting a duty confined to ancient times, and not obligatory under the present dispensation?

A. As it is of moral obligation, it is consequently a duty incumbent upon present times; for things which are moral do not diminish in their obligation by the lapse of time.

Q. By what arguments can its obligation in New Testament times, be solidly proved?

A. By the following. 1. It was obviously a duty under the Old Testament dispensation, and being nowhere repealed, and being moral and not typical, it is of present obligation. Ps. lxxvi. 11, “Vow and pay unto the Lord your God.” 2. Scripture prophecies, evidently referring to New Testament times, and even yet to be fulfilled. Is. xix. 18,21,23,24,25, “In that day (the latter day) shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts,” &c., &c. Jer. iv. 4,5. “In those days (Millennial), and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, going and weeping; they shall go and seek the Lord their God. They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.” 3. The New Testament recognises the obligation. Rom. vi. 13. Compare 2 Chr. xxx. 8, 2 Cor. viii. 5. The Macedonian churches, says Paul, “Not as we hoped, but first gave their ownselves unto the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.” Not in the Lord’s supper, which Paul certainly hoped they would do, but to his surprise, in a public social covenant. Rom. i. 7. “Covenant breakers” have a place in the catalogue of sinners, whose conduct is denounced as displeasing to the Almighty; which could not be the case, unless on the supposition of the continued obligation of covenanting. 4. It was one of the distinguishing privileges of the Jews to be in covenant with God. “I am married unto you, saith the Lord.” The privileges of the New Testament dispensation are increased and not diminished. Heb. xii. 18,22. 5. This duty is involved in the church’s relation to God, as a married relation. Hos. ii. 19,20; Eph. v. 30, iv. 25. Covenanting is only a solemn recognition of this relation, and engagement to evidence this by a life and conversation becoming the Gospel. Is. lxii. 4, evidently alludes to New Testament times, and celebrates not only an ecclesiastical, but national marriage. By the marriage of a land unto God, we are not to understand that the trees of the forest, the mountains or plains come under engagements. Surely it must be the nation inhabiting the land. National marriage implies a national deed whereby the inhabitants, in their national capacity, solemnly covenant unto God. 6. The duty, when performed in its true spirit, is a source of unspeakable benefit to a people; and, as nations seek the blessing, they should perform the duty. Ps. cxliv. 15, “Happy is that people that is in such a case; yea, happy is that people whose God is the Lord.” Bound to God and he to them in “an everlasting covenant, not to be forgotten.”

An earlier problem mentioned for Social Contract Theory, is the problem of extending the obligation of the Social Contract business agreement to the next generation. Here the Reformed Presbyterian Catechism offers a straight answer where the Social Contract view remains forever dumb,

“Q. Are public social covenants of continuous obligation? or, are they binding upon the posterity of the original covenanters, as long as the corporate body exists; or, until such time as the object for which they were framed has been accomplished?

A. They are; and this position is sustained by forcible arguments. 1. We find posterity recognised in the transaction between God and Jacob, at Bethel. Gen. xxviii. 13; compared with Hosea xii. 4. “He found him (Jacob) in Bethel, and there he spake with us.” 2. We have another remarkable instance of the transmission of covenant obligation to posterity in Deut. v. 2,3. “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers (only) but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” 3. Another example occurs in Deut. xxix. 10-15; the covenant is here made with three descriptions of persons. 1. With those addressed adults. “Neither with you only.” 2. Minors. “Him that standeth here with us.” 3. Posterity. “Him that is not here with us this day”-for this could have no reference to any of the Israelites then in existence, as they were all present. It must, therefore, include posterity, together with all future accessions to the community. With them, Moses informs us, the covenant was made, as well as with those who actually entered into it, in the plains of Moab. 4. Another instance in which posterity is recognised in covenant obligation is found in Joshua ix. 15. This covenant was made between the children of Israel and the Gibeonites. Between four and five hundred years after that time, the children of Israel are visited with a very severe famine, in the days of David. 2 Sam. xxi. 1. And it is expressly declared by the Lord that, “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.” And at the same time, v. 2, that very covenant is recognised, and the breach of it is stated, as being the formal reason of the divine displeasure. Now, had it not been for this covenant, the extirpation of the Gibeonites would not have been imputed to Israel as a thing criminal; for they were comprehended in Caananitish nations, which God had commanded them to root out. 5. Posterity are charged with the sin of violating the covenant of their ancestors. Jer. xi. 10. “The house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers”-by which they are evidently considered as bound. 6. The principle of federal representation confirms this doctrine. Thus when Joseph made a covenant with his brethren, that they should carry up his bones from Egypt to the land of promise, he assumed that those whom he addressed, were the representatives of their successors, as he knew well that the whole of that generation should die before the deliverance of Israel by Moses. Posterity recognised the obligation. Ex. xiii. 19. A similar case of federal representation, is that of the Gibeonites quoted above. 6. Infant baptism is a forcible illustration of the continuous obligation of covenants. 7. The principle of the transmissibility of the obligations of covenants to posterity, is recognised by civilians in civil matters. In the obligations, for example, of the heir of an estate, for the engagements of his predecessor in the possession of it. All national treaties and other engagements of the corporate body, descend with all their weight upon succeeding generations.”

It is for this reason that the Constitution of the United States must be amended to acknowledge the God of Heaven in covenant with him, and to forever reject the idea that a government can be lawfully ordained on the authority of the people alone.


1. Prov 8: 15 “By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice. 16 “By me princes rule, and nobles, All who judge rightly. Here Solomon is choosing a king, not the people.

Ans. This also mentions princes and nobles. Are these also without election and irresistible?

2. 2 Kings 8: 12 Hazael said, “Why does my lord weep?” Then he answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up.” 13 Then Hazael said, “But what is your servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?” And Elisha answered, “The LORD has shown me that you will be king over Aram.”  The king is not made by the people by directly from God.

Ans. Elisha anointed and foretold, he did not constitute.  


A Full Exposition and Defense of a Scripturalist-Scottish Presbyterian Political Theory-3; Chapter 2 Separation of Powers Sunday, Dec 11 2011 

The Westminster Confession Chapter 23.III says,

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The separation of powers is not new with the Protestant Reformation. This doctrine was taught in the Old Testament as George Gillespie demonstrates in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming Chapters 2 and 3. I offer two scriptures for examination:

2 Chron 19:  8 In Jerusalem also Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the heads of the fathers’ households of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD and to judge disputes among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 9 Then he charged them saying, “Thus you shall do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and wholeheartedly. 10 Whenever any dispute comes to you from your brethren who live in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and ordinances, you shall warn them so that they may not be guilty before the LORD, and wrath may not come on you and your brethren. Thus you shall do and you will not be guilty. 11 Behold, Amariah the chief priest will be over you in all that pertains to the LORD, and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all that pertains to the king. Also the Levites shall be officers before you. Act resolutely, and the LORD be with the upright.

Jer 26:  7 The priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. 8 When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him, saying, “You must die! 9Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD saying, ‘This house will be like Shiloh and this city will be desolate, without inhabitant’?” And all the people gathered about Jeremiah in the house of the LORD. 10 When the officials of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king’s house to the house of the LORD and sat in the entrance of the New Gate of the LORD’S house. 11 Then the priests and the prophets spoke to the officials and to all the people, saying, “A death sentence for this man! For he has prophesied against this city as you have heard in your hearing.”12 Then Jeremiah spoke to all the officials and to all the people, saying, “The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. 13 Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you. 14 But as for me, behold, I am in your hands; do with me as is good and right in your sight. 15 Only know for certain that if you put me to death, you will bring innocent blood on yourselves, and on this city and on its inhabitants; for truly the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing.16 Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and to the prophets, “No death sentence for this man! For he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God.” 

Though Luther’s Reformation changed the world, his successors, primarily Melanchthon, watered down much of what he was doing. Fortunately, the great French Theologian John Calvin picked up the torch and led the Western world into a much more consistent Reformation. Through Calvin’s relationship with the great Scottish Reformer John Knox, Scotland Reformed with more consistency and comprehensiveness than any other Protestant nation. It was this consistency that produced the only foundation that could ever topple that old tyrannical Royalist principle of the Divine Right of Kings.

In 1556 Knox published his Book of Church order in Geneva. Calvin approved of it and this book becomes the Genevan Book of Church Order. In 1557-1560 the Scottish Protestant Covenants are sworn.  The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Their number, as well as their zealous spirit, still increasing, they, for the more effectual management of this noble enterprise, entered into covenants to advance that begun work of reformation, and to defend the same and one another in the maintenance thereof, against all opposition whatsoever. Several such covenants our early reformers solemnly entered into at Edinburgh, Perth and Leith, in the years 1557, ‘59, ‘60 and ‘62. In 1560, the Confession of the Faith, and doctrine believed and professed by the Protestants within the realm of Scotland, was compiled and civilly ratified, or allowed of, in free and open parliament, afterward sworn to the National Covenant anno 1580, 1581 and 1590.” (Act, Declaration and Testimony)

In 1567-1617 King James VI reigns and plots against the Reformation.  James VI passed the Black Acts (1584) to impose royal authority over the Kirk between 1584 and 1603. This Act prohibited ecclesiastical assemblies without the King’s consent. In 1618-1621 James VI increased his pressures against the Reformation. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Thus, after several former attempts to this effect, was episcopacy again established, and prelates lording over GOD’S heritage advanced, imposing their Popish ceremonies, which in that pretended assembly convened at Perth, anno 1618, were enacted, and afterwards ratified in a subsequent parliament, in the year 1621.” (Act, Declaration….)

In 1637-1638 The Covenanters in Scotland rose up against the efforts of their King and renewed the Reformed National Covenant in March of 1638.  In 1644 Rutherford published his world altering book Lex Rex which was the refutation of the Divine Right of Kings and a Biblical construction of the separation of powers. This book stripped the Royalists of their Anti-Christian de-facto power and demanded that lawful authority have the consent of the people. These accomplishments were a product of the previous seven years of national trial. In 1646 Charles I surrendered to the Covenanter army after his General Montrose was defeated at Newark. In 1649 King Charles II was appointed King upon the condition that he take the Covenants. The Reformed Presbytery states,

“Upon which the parliament of Scotland, on the 5th of February, 1649, caused proclaim his son Charles II, king of Great Britain, France, Ireland (which title he had assumed himself at the Hague, as soon as the report of his father’s death came to his ears), promising their fidelity and defence of his person and authority, according to the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant. And in the same time declaring, that before he be admitted to the exercise of the royal power, he shall give security for the preservation and maintenance of the true reformed religion, and unity of the kingdoms, now established, by laws both civil and ecclesiastical, according to the covenants: which security for religion and liberty, at the first proposed treaty at the Hague, he deferred to grant, and afterward postponed the signing of the treaty at Breda, when everything was agreed upon, from the great hopes he entertained of accomplishing his design, without acquiescing with their demand from Montrose’s expedition, whom he had sent into Scotland with an army, in order to prepare his way into that kingdom, by devastation with fire and sword. But this intrigue not succeeding, he found himself obliged to comply with all their proposals, and signed the treaty. This treaty the king did in effect break, before he left Breda, by communicating after the episcopal manner, contrary to the express warning and remonstrance of the commissioners from the church of Scotland, who went to him, and showed him his sin in so doing, and how inconsistant it was with his own concessions in the sent treaty; and an evidence that he had no intention to perform what he had agreed to, but dissembled with GOD and man; and he, on the other hand, put them off with sham excuses and professions; and so, from their too much credulity to his fraudulent professions and promises all along, they brought him over to Scotland, and before his landing in this kingdom, he takes the covenant at Spey, on the 23rd of June, 1649, by his oath subjoined in allowance and approbation of the Covenants National, and Solemn League, obliging himself faithfully to prosecute the ends thereof in his station and calling; and for himself and successors, he shall agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the same, and establishing presbyterial church government, the directory for worship, confession of faith and catechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as approven by the General Assemblies of this kirk, and parliament of this kingdom. And for their further satisfaction, according to the act of the West Kirk, Edinburgh, August 13th, 1650, approven the same day by the committee of estates, he emitted a declaration at Dunfermline, by profession, fully and heartily acquiescing with all their demands; all which afterward served for nothing but as a lasting monument of his horrid perjury, wicked dissimulation, and mockery of God and man. And even then, when this declaration was published, he had formed a design for bringing in the enemies of the covenant, and work of reformation, both into the army and judicatories, and for dividing the Presbyterians among themselves. And this he effectually managed for both foresaid ends, by the public resolutions, on the 14th of December, that same year, 1650. This woful and prime step of defection, so contrary to the word, and injurious to the work of God, was faithfully testified against by many, both ministers, and whole presbyteries, who were sensible of the present sinfulness and evil of it, and foresaw the bitter and dismal consequences that followed upon it.” (Acts, Declaration…)

It was strict adherence to the authority of scripture which, when applied to worship is referred to as the regulative principle. This principle provided the nation of Scotland the uniformity of conviction to stand against the Royalists. However, this view of Separation of Church and State did not support the idea of unbridled pluralism. This view affirmed that the Church and State have the exact same Theology but separation in function. It was their SYSTEM of authority that succeeded in overturning the Royalists and establishing a system of government under a Covenant to God AND BASED ON GOD that seated the separation of Church and State. There was also the distinction between the Eternal Sonship and the Mediatorship of Christ that was key in their definitions. Without this SYSTEM OF AUTHORITY Separation of Church and State would have never happened.  Harold Laski says, “This is, in a special degree, true of the Reformation. It was the real starting point of democratic ideas;” (Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos Historical Introduction). The United States of America, the country of my birth and current residence does not secure religious liberty to its citizens. No country ever does or ever can.
I am a Sabbatarian and I have had to take huge debts which resulted in the loss of my career and my health because this society’s economy ipso facto rejects the Sabbatarian’s rights to practice his religion. I believe that general work and business on Sunday is prohibited and because of this I have been refused employment on scores of occasions. I have filled out or sent thousands of resumes and applications to employers during the last semester of college and after I graduated. The only jobs I could get were positions that paid little more than minimum wage. I had to get multiple jobs to survive which ended up destroying my health.  I now have of no way of surviving unless I work at an institution that is completely necessary for society and lawful to be open 7 days a week under my religious beliefs. I know many other people who believe the same thing and have been threatened to lose their jobs if they don’t work on Sunday. No nation allows freedom of all religion. Its people through their own actions develop economies that inherently prejudice the religion of others. The only worldview that the United States protects and promotes is atheism; but I digress.  The Scottish Covenanter view of Separation of Church and State is explained in George Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pg. 85-90 See link here.

Was the American View of Separation of Church and State Influenced by The Calvinist View of Human Nature?

Growing up in America, I have had so many erroneous opinions shoved down my throat it is hard to keep track but this one I remember all too well. In American Evangelical Presumed Protestant Churches, they tell you that the American Revolution and the American view of Separation of Church and State flowed out of the Calvinist conception of Total Depravity which demanded accountability to government. Actually the opposite is the case. Now, John Cotton’s Limitation of Government clearly shows that the Calvinist view of human nature is the basis of limited government. However, this was also essential to the establishment principle which America abhors. The depravity of man required the Establishment of God’s Revealed Religion as the highest authority over the Government.  In the following quotation Scotland and America are great case example of the consequences following from either a Revealed Epistemology or an Empirical Epistemology. In The Dictates of Conscience: The Debate Over Religious Liberty In Revolutionary Virginia, Deborah O’Malley explains the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson,

“Jefferson’s strong belief in our ability to know God’s goodness [Without Grace and Special Revelation-DS] in particular will be essential for his understanding of  religious liberty.  He was blatantly critical of  any doctrine which he believed undermined God’s goodness.  In  the same letter to Adams, Jefferson explicitly stated his aversion to the doctrines of Calvinism.

‘I can never join Calvin in addressing  his god…If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.  The being  described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge  and adore; the Creator and benevolent governor of the world;  but a demon of malignant spirit.  It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of  Calvin.’ [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 in Jefferson: Writings, pg. 1466-DS]…

The emphasis which Calvin puts on sin is clearly absent from Jefferson’s writings.  Calvin’s view of human nature is that it is soaked in sin; therefore, certain ideas which we have may be a result of sin rather than God, including the idea of liberty.  We need the grace of God before we can determine which ideas are a result of sin and which ones are not.  This understanding of sin was present in the arguments of many of Jefferson’s  opponents.  In fact, many of his opponents were critical of his idea of the “state of nature” in which all men have an innate right to liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson speaks of this idea as “self-evident,” but the Calvinist would argue that something which seems to be self-evident may be a result of sin. Jefferson, however, believes that liberty is a gift of God:

‘The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” [Rights of British America, 1774 in The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson.  John P. Foley, ed.  (New York: Funk & Wagnells Co., 1990) on the University of Virginia Libraryonline:]…

Therefore, the idea of liberty could not possibly be a result of sin.” (Pg. 18-20)

This is quite devastating to the entire enterprise of the Constitutionalist Theonomic Poser-Protestant. The entire view of humanity in this system is the superiority of the individual human will and its inherent inclination and desire to seek the truth. This is the exact opposite of what Calvinism and the Holy Gospels teach: John 3: 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Speaking of the Protestant Reformation, its instance on lawful government, its denial of infallible human authority, but its refusal to accept atheistic pluralism, Harold Laski writes,

“The partial toleration so won did not, of course, imply that men had learned to accept the secular nature of the state…Nor, in general, did they seek to probe further into the meaning of popular sovereignty. It was not until the French Revolution that Europe as a whole grasped the
fact that the theory, with all its possibilities, applied not less to political than to religious needs…. In England, indeed, the transition to the secular state had, at least in part, been made much earlier. The Rebellion and the Revolution transferred the results of the discussion upon the place of religion in the state to the political field a century before Rousseau so depicted them that no man might mistake their meaning. But, even in England, until the emergence of Burke and Bentham, it is the consistently religious background of political speculation that is most striking. Locke could not write a treatise on civil government until, in the Letter on Toleration, he had vindicated the self-sufficiency of the state, and its consequent freedom from religious trammels.”(Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, Historical Introduction)

The Protestants had endeavored to unify their nations under one Protestant faith. (The Augsburg Confession 1530 A.D. Preface to the Emperor Charles V) The Atheists and the Romanists were both agreed that this needed to change. Their solution was the Enlightenment. J. Parnell McCarter in his book Let My People Go says,

“But even in the midst of the Reformation era,  ominous signs also appeared. Ignatius Loyola had created an army of Jesuits to war against Protestantism with every device possible.  And the Papacy put all of its support behind this Jesuit army.   The Jesuit-trained Descartes – the “father of modern philosophy” – was having a profound influence upon the thinking in Protestant nations.  His Enlightenment philosophy elevated human reason so that the Bible seemed an unnecessary appendage.  It denied the total depravity of fallen man.  And it suggested that human reason unaccompanied by Biblical faith could achieve more in such realms as politics than Biblical faith.  This Enlightenment philosophy came in time to dominate the world, thwarting reformed Christian rule.”

The Enlightenment or the idea of secular society is a way to control our society by the Roman Catholic Church. After the Protestant Reformation the Society of Jesus- the Jesuits was formed to attack the Reformation in a movement called The Counter-Reformation. Their primary idea was to destroy the established Protestant nations through secular humanistic philosophy. The Roman Church lost more than half of their control over the western world during the Reformation and if they couldn’t have them no one was. Secularism allowed them back into nations where they previously were barred by the power of law. Now with this secular system in place they could grow again, increase their wealth, and conspire to gain power for the Pope again. Case in point is Rene Descartes. He started generations of philosophers that tried to develop ways to get knowledge without appealing to religion. Thus the age of secular philosophy began and Protestant Nations that once taught their people true religion got ignored and Civilization left the door wide open again for the Roman Beast. Reader, ask yourself, why did the most intolerant religion in the history of the world, the Roman Catholic Religion, who bore the Inquisition in her breast, all of a sudden do a complete 180 on numerous civil issues after the Reformation? For crying out loud, In Coena Domini was repealed! This leads us to the next topic at hand: a full demonstration and diatribe against the atheism of modern civilization.

To conclude, I would like to add that the recent religious scandal with Harold Camping, provides prima facie evidence that other people’s religious beliefs do affect others harmfully even though that person does not have civil power.   Many of his followers donated their life savings and quit their jobs, as they were convinced that Camping’s Christ mocking(Mat 24:36) doctrine  was the truth. To say nothing of the employers and employees of these people, the entire escapade caused national outrage. How much clearer do we have to make Thomas Jefferson’s stupidity whe he says,

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god…” [Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII in Jefferson: Writings, pg. 285-DS] (pg. 26 iof The Dictates of Conscience: The Debate Over Religious Liberty In Revolutionary Virginia, Deborah O’Malley)

Oh really, Mr Jefferson, it does no harm for someone to be incorrect  regarding religion? Tell that to the embittered followers of Harold Camping. Tell that to the victims of the money hungry predators on TBN.  Tell that to the children who have been at the molesting hand of a Roman Catholic Priest who believes in clerical celibacy. Tell that to the many people who are victims of government abuse in reaction to Muslim Terrorism.  The first amendment of the Bill of Rights makes our government powerless to defend the rights of its people against these religious predators. What about our right to Truth?


As a post script, John Robbins has done a good job answering a bit of modern propaganda. Secular educators like to point to the Greeks and Romans instead of the Protestant Reformation,  as our source of libertarian principles. John Robbins challenges this idea in his essay, Christ and Civilization

Eastern Orthodox Defense of Christmas Refuted; Pious Fabrication’s David Withun Trying to Defend Christmas Again and Failing Saturday, Dec 10 2011 

In 1567-1617 A.D. King James VI reigned and plotted against the Reformation.  James VI passed the Black Acts (1584) to impose royal authority over the Scottish Kirk between 1584 and 1603. This Act prohibited ecclesiastical assemblies without the King’s consent. In 1618-1621 James VI increased his pressures against the Reformation. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Thus, after several former attempts to this effect, was episcopacy again established, and prelates lording over GOD’S heritage advanced, imposing their Popish ceremonies, which in that pretended assembly convened at Perth, anno 1618, were enacted, and afterwards ratified in a subsequent parliament, in the year 1621.” (Act, Declaration..)

He imposed a number of ceremonies, among which was the Celebration of Christmas. This was resisted in Scotland.  In 1637-1638 The Covenanters in Scotland rose up against the efforts of their King and renewed the Reformed National Covenant in March of 1638.  In 1644 Rutherford published his world altering book Lex Rex which was the refutation of the Divine Right of Kings and a Biblical construction of the separation of powers based upon the same system of authority that denied the celebration of Christmas/Holy Days. This book stripped the Royalists of their Anti-Christian de-facto power and demanded that lawful authority have the consent of the people. These accomplishments were a product of the previous seven years of national trial. In 1646 Charles I surrendered to the Covenanter army after his General Montrose was defeated at Newark. I say this only to demonstrate that this is a touchy subject for us Scottish Puritan types, and especially qualifies us to speak to the issue and quite frankly the contemporary Christian world is abysmally ignorant of this history without which they would all be under the tyranny of English Monarchs. Our system of authority is the only one that remains consistent while denying the de-facto authority and Apollinarianism  of the Royalists. If contemporary Christians wish to celebrate Christmas they need to be consistent and deny the American War of Independence  and accept the Divine Right of Kings, which would make their own government based solely on conquest and tyrannical itself, which some fundamental Baptists, Mark Minnick is one, have been honest enough to admit to- at least to the former.

Withun’s Pious Fabrications, an Eastern Orthodox Blog has a defense of the Patristic Celebration of Christmas here and he has recently repeated such in a video here:

I found David’s article to fail in providing warrant from either scripture or history for the practice of Christmas. His was a diatribe against the Anabaptists and the Atheists; a very popular method in Patristic apologetics. The Reformed position is found in the Directory for Public Worship. AN APPENDIX, Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship in the Original Westminster Standards and it reads thus:

“THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.

As no place is capable of any holiness, under pretence of whatsoever dedication or consecration; so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient for Christians to meet together therein for the publick worship of God. And therefore we hold it requisite, that the places of publick assembling for worship among us should be continued and employed to that use.”

David says,

“The modern use of a Christmas tree no more implies an adherence to any of the pagan cults which used trees in their worship than the eating of a meal implies a dedication to the god Mithras whose worship involved the eating of communal meals.”


If pagan associations are not to be done away with along with the idolatry then why does Jacob command the destruction of the earring in Gen 35:4? They could have said, “Oh Jacob, wearing earrings no more implies a dedication to idols than eating a meal implies being involved in pagan communal meals.” The same could be said of the gold offering in Deut 7:25, the coverings in Isa 30:22, etc. Duet 12:29-32, Isa 30:22, Jude 23, Exo 34:13, Duet 7:25, Num 33:52, Rev 2:14, 20 (knowingly), Gen 35:4, 2 Kings 10:22-28, 2 Kings 23: 4, 5, 6, 7 ,2 Chron 23:15, Dan 1:8, 2 Kings 16:4, 10, 2 Chron 13:9, Exo 23:13, Duet 12:3,30, Josh 23:7. Chrysostom had temples of idols destroyed inPhoenicia;Constantine did not destroy the temples of the idols when he came into power and because of this Julian the Apostate was able to resurrect these idolatries. The Didache forbids fasting on certain days that the hypocrites do for the same reason: religious association. Christmas trees are monuments of Bohemian idolatry. Period.


“The common mythology of Christmas origins goes something like this:

“Early Christians did not celebrate the birth of Christ and even regarded the celebration of birthdays, including even that of their savior, as a superstitious pagan practice. For this reason, no one was even remotely interested in finding out the day of Christ’s birth.””


Well, as George Gillespie (He wrote the magnum opus of Puritan worship, English Popish Ceremonies) showed about 400 years ago, Easter is the only ceremony that the Patristics can show for the first 2 centuries of the Church: “yet can neither be proved to have been observed in the apostles’ own age, nor yet to have been established in the after age by any law, but only to have crept in by a certain private custom.” Gellespie, EPC pg. xxxviii. You proved him right.


“There is, however, no explicit mention of a celebration of these events. Equally, there is also no condemnation of nor aversion to such a celebration.”


Thank you for the admission, yet, the Regulative Principle eliminates the relevance of any prohibition, condemnation or aversion. Divine Warrant is required, Deut 12:29-32, Mat 15:8,Col2:23.

Your argument on the dating was a monumental failure. What his conception has to do with anything remains a mystery to me in determining the day of his birth. The day Jesus died is referred to as the Passover in John 18:39. This celebration begins after sundown on the 14th day of Nisan which on our calendar would be in the middle of March. According to Daniel 9:24-27 there are 70 weeks (Weeks are periods of seven years) determined forIsrael. There are 69 weeks from the building of the temple to Messiah. The Messiah’s ministry is in the midst of the 70th week and an in the middle of this week he is killed and his death puts an end to the sacrificial system (Mat 27:51). Therefore, his ministry began at the end of the 69th week and continued until the middle of the 70th week, making his ministry exactly 3 and ½ years in duration. Jesus began his ministry when he was 30 (Luk 3:23) years old as was tradition among the Levite priests from the command of God in the law (Num 4:3). Therefore, his death was in mid March; 6 months before mid March is mid September and three years before that is obviously mid September. He began his ministry the same time as his 30th birthday, therefore he was born in the month of September not even close to December 25th. Now to another bit of fiction from the traditional nativity scenes: Jesus was born and in the same day was lying in a manger (Luke 2:16). After eight days he received circumcision (vs 21). Even as Mat 2:1 and the context reveal, the magi who came bearing gifts came much later after his birthday; as is added by Mat 2:11 they found him in a HOUSE as compared with his manger birth. These were not birthday gifts and it was not the first Christmas celebration. So you are way off no matter what calendar you choose.

Your section on the peripherals of Christmas was abysmal. You didn’t deal with any of the documentation that Alexander Hislop gave to these issues in his bookThe Two Babylons.

To the reader: If you are in a Protestant denomination and if indeed you must celebrate this holy day, be consistent. Leave your Church and join the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Anglican Church. Luther left the Lutherans no room to celebrate holy days in his Treatise on Good Works 17: “This Sabbath has now for us been changed into the Sunday, and the other days are called work-days; the Sunday is called rest-day or holiday or holy day. And would to God that in Christendom there were no holiday except the Sunday;”. Granting the Church authority to impose ceremonies is an ipso facto rejection of sola scriptura and the regulative principle not to mention an admission of the hierarchical Churches’ authority to do so.

Churches that abolished Holy Days: Geneva, StrassburgGermany,Zurich in Helvetia (Switzerland)[EPC, 48], Belgic Church National Synod 1578, The Waldenses [EPC, 49]. The Church of Scotland and a number of the Puritan Colonies of theNew England area in the 17th century.

Many years ago before I was  a Christian, I used to date a girl who was into witchcraft and this celebration is known as Yule among our Bohemian ancestors. She would buy the tree, decorate it and celebrate all the common customs associated with it the old pagan way. David and the anchoretics live in fantasy land.

The Lord’s Day is the only observance of a day allowed in the NT. All other holy days are forbidden in the NT dispensation because none are commanded or implied.

        I will give arguments proving this assertion basing them on the work of David Calderwood, Perth Assembly [91] (1619) which I have found most agreeable to scripture.

A holy day is a public and solemn ceremony observed at a certain time of the year giving special thanks to God for a received benefit with great delight. To give a distinction: a holy day is annual, the Sabbath is weekly.  Holy days in the OT required in general, that common work be sequestered, the hearing of the word of God, and participation in the sacraments.

i.  God commands that we work on common days and if there is no prohibition to work, such as the Sabbath, we are commanded to work and redeem the time (Exo 20:9, Eph 5:16).

ii. A holy day, being an act of religious worship falls under the restrictions of the regulative principle (Duet 12:29-32).  There is no command for holy days after their abrogation, therefore, they are forbidden.  Holy days such as Christmas are not simply traditional days for public remembrance, heritage or civil celebration but are synchristic acts of religious worship that combine elements of Christianity and paganism. In this they are condemned as Popish superstition.  It is God’s prerogative how one worships him.[92]   The pagan roots of Christmas have been so overwhelmingly proved and admitted that I find no reason to beat this dead dog.

iii. Some say that they celebrate Christmas, not as a religious holy day but as a family day.  The problem is, in the solemnity of the Church service, the selection of the Christmas text,  usually Luke 2, the Christmas sermon, the solemn carols sung that are reserved only for the service or at least the month of December, the special garbs, the decorating of the Church and the private homes, the special meals and the gathering of the family, makes this day not only religious, but more solemn and religious than the weekly Sabbath.

iv. Days of fasting do not require abstinence from work and cannot be considered holy days. Days of fasting are allowed to be proclaimed and are not contradictory to these principles (Joel 2:15).

v. The Lord’s Day is given to remember all of Christ’s work and has apostolic authority in it’s practice. No other day commemorating any other work of Christ is commanded or practiced by apostolic example and therefore forbidden.

vi. Relics of idolatry are never to be Christianized as the Roman religion seeks.  Therefore, our relationship to Christmas trees is at least analogous to what Hezekiah did to the brazen serpent that had of late been used in superstitious worship (2 Kings 18:4). He did not baptize it, he destroyed it.

vii. Monuments of past idolatry (And not only the idols themselves but the passage speaks of all the vessels and ornaments associated and used in the idolatry) are to be destroyed as good King Josiah did in 2 Kings 23 along with many other examples.[93]

viii. Whether the assumed birthday of Christ chosen by the sheepish party is associated with paganism is a fallacy of accident in the major issue concerning December 25.  The major issue is that he was not born on December 25 and to say so is a lie.  The lie is exposed by simple mathematics. The day Jesus died is referred to as the Passover in John 18:39. This celebration begins after sundown on the 14th day of Nisan which on our calendar would be in the middle of March.  According to Daniel 9:24-27 there are 70 weeks (Weeks are periods of seven years) determined for Israel. There are 69 weeks from the building of the temple to Messiah.  The Messiah’s ministry is in the midst of the 70th week and an in the middle of this week he is killed and his death puts an end to the sacrificial system (Mat 27:51).  Therefore, his ministry began at the end of the 69th week and continued until the middle of the 70th week, making his ministry exactly 3 and ½ years in duration.  Jesus began his ministry when he was 30 (Luk 3:23) years old as was tradition among the Levite priests from the command of God in the law (Num 4:3).  Therefore, his death was in mid March; 6 months before mid March is mid September and three years before that is obviously mid September.  He began his ministry the same time as his 30th birthday, therefore he was born in the month of September not even close to December 25th .

ix. The regulative principle applies just as much to regular life as it does to public worship. If the element of worship is present, the restriction remains.   Women need to cover their heads when they pray, whether it be in Church or in the home; Praise to God must be sung only from the Psalter whether in Church or in the home;  and vessels pertaining to synchristic idolatry should be left out of the home as well as the Church.

x. Jesus was born and in the same day was lying in a manger (Luke 2:16).  After eight days he received circumcision (vs 21).  Even as Mat 2:1 and the context reveal, the magi who came bearing gifts came much later after his birthday; as is added by Mat 2:11 they found him in a house as compared with his manger birth.  These were not birthday gifts and it was not the first Christmas celebration.


i. Christ celebrated the feast of the dedication (John 10:22-23) which was not commanded.

Ans.  The passage nowhere says he celebrated it. He simply arrives at a gathering of people for the purpose of preaching.

ii. Purim was observed by the Jews and it was not commanded (Est 9:26-29).

Ans.  This is not a holy day but a civil celebration (Est 9:19-22).

iii. Paul kept the feast of Pentecost. Acts 20:16, 1 Cor 16:8

Ans.  This is the Jewish Pentecost, for the Pentecost celebrated by the sheepish party the seventh Sunday after Easter (Celebrating the descent of the Holy Ghost) is celebrated in many places; yet Paul seeks to leave where he is presently writing to observe Pentecost and explicitly says in Acts 20 he would be coming to Jerusalem to observe it.


[91] Calderwood, David Perth Assembly.  Edited by Greg Fox. (  Puritan Reprints, 2006)

[92] 1Ki 12:32  And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.

1Ki 12:33  So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.

[93] Deu 12:2  Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:

Deu 12:3  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Gen 35:1  And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.

Gen 35:2  Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:

Gen 35:3  And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.

Gen 35:4  And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

2Ki 10:26  And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal, and burned them.

2Ki 10:27  And they brake down the image of Baal, and brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house unto this day.

2Ki 10:28  Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel.

[94] For the fullest account of this issue I refer the reader to Calvin and the Sabbath by Richard B. Gaffin.[94]

[95] Originally the Institutes were published in 1536 and taught that there is no specific day that the Church has to worship God.  In the Genesis commentary that was published in 1554, he says that God has appointed one day in seven that all people should observe for worship. Here the contradiction is resolved.

[96] Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

Rick Meyers 2009, E sword version,

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: