Some wonder about the separation of church and state and what the Westminster Standards say about it in light of the post-American Revolution revision of 1788. One copy of the Westminster Standards 1788 revision has a commentary that addresses some of the points.
Concerning especially chapter 17-that on civil magistracy,
“ the proof texts were revised, thus suggesting a shift in understanding of paragraph 2 in light of the changes made to The 1788 American Revision of the Westminster Standards paragraph 3. Although the proof texts did not have binding constitutional authority, they illuminate the intent of both the Westminster divines and the Synod of Philadelphia and New York with respect to their doctrine of the civil magistrate.
As you read the 1788 Confession and its proof texts, in comparison with the original version and its proof texts, it ought to become apparent that the position held both by modern theonomists and by the original Westminster divines (viz., that the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce in the civil arena the Decalogue’s prohibition of false worship), was formally and intentionally repudiated by the American Presbyterian church. It follows that this theocratic conception of the civil magistrate continues to be repudiated, at least on paper, by those Presbyterian churches that have adopted the revised version.”
I would think that with the plurality of Protestant denominations that followed the reformation the desire of American prelates for religious tolerance and pro forma separation of church and state would have been self-evident. It would have been too simple for a civil magistrate otherwise to suppress various Christian sects as forms of false worship, much less non-Christian religions. Imagine if Pontius Pilate had been given authority and duty to repress all religion besides Caesar worship in Israel.
The Westminster Standards were written I think, just prior to the first regicide in Europe-Charles I. That brought on many changes. Keep in mind the attitude that philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes writing in his book 'Leviathan' had toward monarchy and absolutism.
With the American revolution, Witherspoon, a signatory of the Declaration, and others would have found it challenging to have a state authority-say President Obama, decide what the true religion in the United States is and suppress all others. I think he would decide that the First Church of Napoleonic Ice Cream is the true religion myself, and suppress any rival flavor working inevitably towards state monopoly.
My notes on chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession from the Gershner Lectures...
Lecture 17 The Civil Magistrate
the church was established in Britain then in the United States, then the U.S. revolted against Britain, and the separation of church and state developed, so this is an historically substantive topic
"1. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers. "
This is the fundamental Christian philosophy of the state the sword is for the encouragement of those that are good and the punishment of evil doers
John Witherspoon and other signers of the declaration reasoned that a government was for good and not evil, and that the British government wasn't doing that, and so it wasn't a true government and didn't have the right to exercise that power over the colonies
Until 1790 the clergy -the reformed clergy especially-was an advocate for social change and supported the rebellion
the British government was not appointed by God or had advocated that and was not a lawful government doing good to the people for the glory of God
"2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. "
A body politic may defend itself against corrupt government and criminals-yet only for just and necessary causes we do not assume a civil magistrate is incapable of error maybe one may use active disobedience to not comply with a corrupt government
"3. 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; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance. "
The relation of church and state
the state should protect the church-all denominations of Christians (that isn't what the U.S.A. does today)
A.A. Hodge- wrote a commentary on the Westminster confession
It is the duty of people to pray for the magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, and to obey their lawful commands, and to obey them for conscience's sake-not because they bear the sword
"4. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, m to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever. "
clergy and ecclesiastical power are not exempt from the law-catholics took opposite view...
sword over the state (indirectly)
bull unam sanctum states papal infallibility
1302 papal deliverance from the throne
when the pope speaks from the throne on faith and morals he is infallible
there is no ex cathiter list of which deliverances are infallible
Denzinger's 'Encoridion' (spelling) includes the 1302 bull unam sanctum on faith and mo
